Anyone else having high ping problems, slow response time?
Here's some stats definately not right, but I've been in touch with support hopefully the can resolve it.
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 181ms, Maximum = 206ms, Average = 191ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>ping www.jolt.co.uk
Pinging www.jolt.co.uk [84.234.17.86] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 84.234.17.86:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 137ms, Maximum = 202ms, Average = 173ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>tracert www.idnet.com
Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 175 ms 199 ms 200 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 239 ms 177 ms 166 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 199 ms 179 ms 152 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 176 ms 172 ms 177 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 173 ms 186 ms 195 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>
Normal here. :(
ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 26ms
And here:
PING www.idnet.com (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=19.312 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=19.077 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=18.950 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=18.933 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=19.373 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=19.046 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=19.018 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=18.230 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=19.188 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=18.406 ms
--- www.idnet.com ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 18.230/18.953/19.373/0.348 ms
you sure you've not got any trojans on your pc?
High pings and half speed for me this morning
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 144ms, Maximum = 180ms, Average = 165ms
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/521213734.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
Have you spoken to support? I've been told the network is back to normal this morning.
Yes Rik spoke to support at 9.30 this morning,still the same but.
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 165ms, Maximum = 205ms, Average = 177ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>
Support have just sorted mine for me - now back to normal. Give them a call
Could they give you a reason for the high pings, Glen?
Quote from: Rik on Jul 20, 2009, 11:33:10
Could they give you a reason for the high pings, Glen?
I was told they "reset my session", but looks like it was probably like it since yesterday. My son was complaining of lag on the Xbox yesterday so sounds likely. Looks like mine was a local exchange issue that a reset cleared...
Thanks. :thumb:
No Rik, just said they'd be in touch, so just have to wait.
Keep us posted will you?
My pings (from Cheshire) are poor too. I have the electric company calling soon to change the meter so I won't phone IDNet just now.
On gw5 by the way.
[attachment deleted by admin]
My pings Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 32ms, Maximum = 114ms, Average = 62ms
Not so great when all is well >:(
Bit lumpy, Gary. Might be worth doing an extended test with the -n parameter, say -n 100?
Quote from: Rik on Jul 20, 2009, 12:23:28
Bit lumpy, Gary. Might be worth doing an extended test with the -n parameter, say -n 100?
Ok will do :thumb:
Mine are the same, all was good this morning at 10.10am pings to idnet.net were 40-42. Now my pings have shot up again tho average is 180ms :O (Speed still poor at 10.10am)
Speeds not been the same for days either best I got was 4.5meg at 2am the other morning, 6.5meg profile too. I'll wait till midweek then maybe call support since they just let me know the Interleave is going off in the next 24hours.
Aaarrghh!
My pings are also high this morning - just about to try rebooting the router.
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 150ms, Maximum = 179ms, Average = 162ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 148ms, Maximum = 185ms, Average = 167ms
Ping average (to www.idnet.net) is 28ms on gw5 here.
Following reboot, pings are better, but there seems to be a bump on the tracert:
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 33ms, Maximum = 36ms, Average = 34ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 35ms, Average = 31ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert idnet.com
Tracing route to idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms <1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 32 ms 37 ms 37 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 146 ms 433 ms 126 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 31 ms 31 ms 37 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 31 ms 31 ms 31 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 35 ms 31 ms 31 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
I'm seeing it one hop later:
tracert www.idnet.com
Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms <1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 25 ms 27 ms 25 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 26 ms 27 ms 25 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 37 ms 54 ms 287 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 27 ms 25 ms 25 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping www.idnet.net -n 100
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 99, Lost = 1 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 175ms, Average = 38ms
lot of pings there, Rik :)
Reasonable overall but some big spikes, Gary. Coupled with the tracerts, it makes you wonder if there's a router which is a bit busy?
I've sent mine to support - awaiting a response. :)
Quote from: Rik on Jul 20, 2009, 12:56:09
Reasonable overall but some big spikes, Gary. Coupled with the tracerts, it makes you wonder if there's a router which is a bit busy?
I was wondering, mostly its ok but one loss of packet and a few high spikes, will have to keep an eye on it :(
Quote from: Simon on Jul 20, 2009, 12:57:21
I've sent mine to support - awaiting a response. :)
within parameters I bet :(
"This is perfectly normal, the important thing is the last hop on the route. The "times" of the hops in the middle are irrelevant as they are routers rather than servers."
I can't actually complain, as my connection seems as good as ever, since I've rebooted the router. :dunno:
My pings went haywire this morning, also the speed dropped. :bawl: I give the router a 30 minute break and it seems OK now. :fingers:
I'm on gw5. :thumb:
Think I'll try the 30 minute break, rebooting and power cycling aren't doing much for me. :bawl: lol @ that smiley
My pings are still the same. Sent a few stats over to IDnet, so they might have an idea whats going on. On gw5 by the way.
Same problem here (also on GW5)
C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com -n 20
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 86ms, Maximum = 181ms, Average = 132ms
Have you guys tried the 30 minute power down? I was experiencing the same high pings this afternoon (also on gw5) after keeping the router off for about 45 mins they are now down to 40ms average from 180.
I hope it lasts.
Quote from: Rapier Racer on Jul 20, 2009, 17:36:49
I hope it lasts.
It probably wont.
From what I have seen powering down or rebooting the router only reduces the latency for a period of time. I have rebooted my router myself a few times and also I have had IDNet reset it from their end too a couple of times. Each time my ping goes back to "normal" levels only to rise back up after a period of time. I have never had a problem with high latency up until about a month ago, nothing has changed at my end regarding hardware connected to line, my line stats are the same as they always have been too. We were told that Wimbledon was to blame, then it was a fault with one of IDNets centrals. Well Wimbledon is over and as far as I am aware the central is fixed and still the problem of high latency is there for many users.
IDNet needs to get this sorted or people will just go to another ISP
Perhaps it's the golf and/or cricket (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4009-online-cricket-and-golf-viewers-create-spike-in-skyplayer-traffic.html) this time? ;)
Perhaps it is, but my neighbours (on is on talktalk and the other is on AOL...neither is regarded as one of the better ISP's) are not having any problems
IDNet have a lot of business customers, and noticed that the effects on their network were only happening during office hours, ie it was people watching sport from the office. I'm surprised employers haven't cottoned on to this loss in productivity.
So what IDNet are say is that your internet connection will be ok as long as you dont actually use it for anything other than web browsing and email?
It looks like they have simply run out of capacity
What I am saying is that their capacity is tested if a large number of users max out their connections simultaneously. No ISP that I know of has sufficient capacity for all their customers to do that. It can be achieved, of course, but at a much higher cost than now, probably at least double. In addition, BT's backhaul can be an issue in some areas. The move to WBC will help, as an ISP is able to add capacity quickly and, relatively, easily. IDNet will be hoping that they will have been able to move the majority of their customers to WBC before events like the World Cup and the Olympics.
Rik
Have done several speed tests (various) this afternoon and speeds are only 'average' or below. Things tick over OK but certainly not up to the usual standard we expect from IDNet, there is something that is not quite right, I would expect a slightly below 'average' speed after 5pm but the below average speeds are during the day time hours.
I would say that for 'normal' usage it is quite acceptable but if someone who requires a little more i.e gaming etc there may be a problem. :(
On gw5 by the way.
Have you talked to support at all, Q? One thing which may be affecting daytime patterns now are the school holidays. My speeds remain consistent, but then I am on WBC.
My ping after yet another router reboot at 5.30ish pm today
C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 40ms, Maximum = 57ms, Average = 48ms
My ping now 7pm.......
C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 91ms, Maximum = 185ms, Average = 133ms
I guess I will ringing for my MAC code in the morning and looking for another ISP
Let us know how you get on. Have you got a shortlist yet?
TBH I was just looking over at Think BB and Zen seem to be having the same issues as IDnet :( maybe BT are just reaching the predicted saturation point, I see people with the same issues as us there.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 35ms, Average = 31ms
Mine seem fine as of now, I do think considering that BT products seem to have issues with other providers like Zen, who had the same problems with load balancing at Wimbledon time, and strange loss of throughput, that unless you find a LLU provider like Be, you are going to get the same everywhere using the BT network
Quote from: Rik on Jul 20, 2009, 19:03:42
Let us know how you get on. Have you got a shortlist yet?
I was thinking of trying Newnet or Andrews and Arnold (AAISP)
Quote from: Fox on Jul 20, 2009, 19:21:47
I was thinking of trying Newnet or Andrews and Arnold (AAISP)
I would go LLU if you can tbh Be are much better, I was on O2/Be LLu I only came back to IDNet as there is no LLU with Be here at my exchange when I moved
Quote from: Rik on Jul 20, 2009, 18:38:02
Have you talked to support at all, Q? One thing which may be affecting daytime patterns now are the school holidays. My speeds remain consistent, but then I am on WBC.
As you may remember Rik, I did contact support and we communicated the subject by PM ;)
Quote from: Fox on Jul 20, 2009, 19:21:47
I was thinking of trying Newnet or Andrews and Arnold (AAISP)
Fox
NewNet is very similar to IDNet, Andrews & Arnold very exclusive & expensive. My brother in law who loves anything 'exclusive' has ditched A&A for O2 (LLU) and so far is happy. In the end, your choice. Frying pan/fire springs to mind here. ;)
Quote from: Gary on Jul 20, 2009, 19:23:11
I would go LLU if you can tbh Be are much better, I was on O2/Be LLu I only came back to IDNet as there is no LLU with Be here at my exchange when I moved
Unfortunately there are no LLU operators on my exchange (Rawcliffe) so I am looking for an ISP with no traffic shaping/port blocking and Newnet or AAISP seem to fit my needs (I do quite a bit of online gaming so low latency is important to me)
Quote from: Fox on Jul 20, 2009, 19:33:01
Unfortunately there are no LLU operators on my exchange (Rawcliffe) so I am looking for an ISP with no traffic shaping/port blocking and Newnet or AAISP seem to fit my needs (I do quite a bit of online gaming so low latency is important to me)
AAISP get good ratings but you pay for it, they are very expensive but off peak being after 6pm is good, Newnet may be a better bet cost wise, I am online in the day (disabled) but at night when my wife gets home i am not so for me they would be a killer as I am up to 8GB peak already this month
Yesterday for the 1st time since Tuesday ( and that was the 1st time in a long time before that), my pings were fine, right up until around 6:30pm today, where you can see in the ping graph below they jumped up, now on my 3rd router reboot, & no improvement. going to try the 30 mins reset in a bit, will post results of that later, & yes I've been in touch with support, their reply was :
Can you boot your PC into safe mode with networking support and send usthe results of some pings carried out using the Windows Command prompt?
Which I will do after the 30 min reboot.
One question I would like to ask:
1) Is everyone who is having the problems on gw5 AND adsl max?, I see people saying they are fine on gw5 but they never state max or wbc.
Edit: Forgot to include graph, Also I would like to state I have all automatic updates & scanning off right down to javascript, their are no processes running apart from the very basic necessities.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Seems ok here and am on gw5, perhaps more of a local issue rather than national.
ping www.idnet.co -n 20
Pinging www.idnet.co [67.215.65.132] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Ping statistics for 67.215.65.132:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 35ms, Average = 26ms
I think it's misleading to place all the blame on BT's Colossus network, when it appears a major factor is the financial cost to the ISP of providing sufficient headroom at the BT Central link stage to cover these spikes in usage. Some pretty graphs might help us understand *nudge* Idnet :)
Hi all, unfortunately having only been with IDNET for 1 month I've decided to migrate away as the standard of connection has been pretty awful throughout.
We're on a fairly short line and generally connect at 8128 to the exchange, and before moving to IDNET would get pings of 15-25 to the bbc etc along with speeds up 6-7mb. Since moving over it's been awful, with speeds regularly below 2-3mb and sometimes way lower at less than 300k!! Pings have also been really high making game playing pretty much impossible, this is a typical ping result:
C:\Users\Paul>tracert bbc.co.uk
Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 3 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 120 ms 102 ms 101 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 123 ms 101 ms 101 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 123 ms 101 ms 101 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
5 124 ms 101 ms 101 ms 212.58.238.129
6 129 ms 101 ms 101 ms virtual-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]
Trace complete.
ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 59ms, Maximum = 136ms, Average = 105ms
Just thought I'd post feedback, on the plus side the customer support people at idnet have been really helpful but the long and the short of it is that the connection has never been right, which is a shame.
:welc: Paul, :karma:
Sorry to hear that you've had a poor experience. :(
9.10PM (gw5) - Ping average (to www.idnet.net) was 210ms, rebooted router and now average is 77ms :(
Cavillas, please could you say whether or not your on adsl max or the new 24mb wbc? It would help if we could narrow down where the problems are or arent as the case may be, so far as I can tell its those on gw5 with adsl max that have issues where wbc seems fine, I could be wrong tho.
Pmx I can understand your decision, I've been with Idnet for about 18 months now & the 1st year was fantastic, exactly what I wanted, but this is the second time this year the net has been virtually unusable for gaming for a protracted period.
Ok long post coming, after leaving router off for full 30 mins it was initially ok for about 30 mins then turned to garbage again, though not the worst I've seen it its still nothing like good, the 1st set straight after the 30 min reboot, the second within an hour later, as per requested I have emailed these to idnet:
Straight after reboot
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping www.idnet.net -n 30
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 48ms, Average = 27ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 23 ms 24 ms 26 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 28 ms 24 ms 22 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 25 ms 24 ms 25 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 33 ms * 26 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 48 ms 43 ms 39 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
One hour after reboot:
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping www.idnet.net -n 30
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 129ms, Average = 82ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 81 ms 71 ms 68 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 69 ms 64 ms 65 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 61 ms 69 ms 87 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 89 ms 92 ms 100 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 116 ms 114 ms 95 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
11.15PM (gw5) - Ping average (to www.idnet.net) is 24ms.
GW5 pings are still dire,same as what many here are seeing right up to 200ms to idnet and also multiplay.co.uk
I would bother to phone support if it would help,I would bother to post a ping list here if it would help.
I also would try a power down for 30 mins to 1hr,but as I have done that about 20 times in the past few days,I cannot be bothered.
All in all a lot of "end of my tether" feeling here and if I do migrate I will not be in a hurry to come back again,as this is the second bout of cra*p and i think enough is enough..
I'm sorry to hear that you feel like that, Mark. Time to look at other ISPs, perhaps, even if just to rule IDNet out as the cause?
What am i doing
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 30ms
ping on gw5 not on WBC, speed test earlier gave me a throughput of 6607, my profile is 7150 my sync is 8128 :dunno: it varies but I read about Zen having issues, support being more terse, I think its a sign of the times for small ISP's, they are feeling the pinch more than the big ISP's like O2 and Virgin, and even they are not buying capacity at a level to keep people happy on ADSL MAX :sigh: I am not sure unless you can get an LLU product you will get a fast reliable connection at all these days and even then it can be over sold as Virgin have done. I guess demand is outstripping the wallets of the providers in the recession, and that may be the reason for the lower speeds, capacity is to expensive to buy, and the more basic replies from support are due to the fact they cant do anything much about it. To put it simply the product we got used to is not financially viable anymore and this will be seen across the board from most niche providers to the bigger ISP's and definitely BT.
I am afraid I am another customer who has come to the end of the tether. Supports response the last time I contacted them, was that the problem was due to the tennis and to reboot my router.
I am not sure how many times a day they expect people to reboot in order to reset the ping to a level that is acceptable, that resolution is a short term fix sometimes only stabilising the ping for 20 mins before it slowly climbs back to the ridiculous.
How many posts or e-mails does it takes regarding ping issues for customer support to take it seriously, and for many people pings are MORE important than download speed.
The problem for me started months ago straight after the supposed upgrade and has been a daily occurrence, sometimes limited to a 2hr spell around 4pm, other days pingraph looks like the Himalayas and is far from funny.
IDNET might want to add a small disclaimer to the foot of their homepage.
With over 12 years of experience, IDNet provides high-performance Internet and Telecom solutions for business and home office users throughout the UK.........
Routers will require hourly reboots, services may be affected by the tennis, golf, football, cricket, big brother, dancing on ice or the Simpsons, gamers need not apply.
I apologise for the sarcasm but months of suffering and hoping for a solution has taken its toll, I tend to live in the past and remember when IDNET was a secret worth keeping, but it has become blatantly obvious over the past 3 months that capacity and NOT the tennis is to blame.
Quote from: MarkE on Jul 21, 2009, 00:23:55
All in all a lot of "end of my tether" feeling here and if I do migrate I will not be in a hurry to come back again,as this is the second bout of cra*p and i think enough is enough..
Mark,
I agree with you, all IDNet seem to be saying is reboot your router and everything will be ok. Well obviously, it isnt. I do note that the network status page on IDNet's site still states sub optimal service (tell us something we dont know). It wouldn't be so bad if they just held up their hands and said yes we have a problem, that the reason for it is x,y or z, and we are going to have it fixed within a few days. My gut feeling is that they have oversold their capacity and we are having to suffer because of it. For a company that prides itself on customer service there really does seem to be something lacking, where so many people are having the same problem and nothing seems to be happening to fix it, or even to explain it.
my 2 cents
Quote from: Mohux_Jnr on Jul 21, 2009, 01:21:24
I am afraid I am another customer who has come to the end of the tether. Supports response the last time I contacted them, was that the problem was due to the tennis and to reboot my router.
I am not sure how many times a day they expect people to reboot in order to reset the ping to a level that is acceptable, that resolution is a short term fix sometimes only stabilising the ping for 20 mins before it slowly climbs back to the ridiculous.
How many posts or e-mails does it takes regarding ping issues for customer support to take it seriously, and for many people pings are MORE important than download speed.
The problem for me started months ago straight after the supposed upgrade and has been a daily occurrence, sometimes limited to a 2hr spell around 4pm, other days pingraph looks like the Himalayas and is far from funny.
IDNET might want to add a small disclaimer to the foot of their homepage.
With over 12 years of experience, IDNet provides high-performance Internet and Telecom solutions for business and home office users throughout the UK.........
Routers will require hourly reboots, services may be affected by the tennis, golf, football, cricket, big brother, dancing on ice or the Simpsons, gamers need not apply.
I apologise for the sarcasm but months of suffering and hoping for a solution has taken its toll, I tend to live in the past and remember when IDNET was a secret worth keeping, but it has become blatantly obvious over the past 3 months that capacity and NOT the tennis is to blame.
The thing is AAISP had the same issues with Wimbledon, I am not defending IDnet as something is not right, I think its capacity and cash flow but thats just my speculation and I could be well off the mark, but if other small ISP's are feeling the ripple you will have to go with a bigger ISP like Zen, and the small print does say they cap you if you go over your bandwidth, but at least a bigger ISP
may be able to afford more capacity, saying that O2 access adsl max makes IDNet look positively fast, choosing a new ISP if you need to, is going to be....interesting to say the least right now :( luckily my line is not as bad as most, but I can see your point of view. On and on that happy note I am off to bed, hope it all works out for people who migrate, let us know how you get on :fingers:
I'm going to persevere a bit longer, because I would say with all this wbc change over happening ,surely it must be affecting a lot of isp's one way or another. :dunno:
Gary,
Its just frustration on my part, I suppose I was hoping I had finally found an isp that would not go down the capacity route, I suppose the trick maybe to switch and keep switching to a new smaller blossoming supplier as IDNET was when I joined.
The fact that customer support can only suggest a reboot and no mention of some technical problem that could be fixed is confirmation for me, however I am an optimist and will live with it for a few more weeks before I bite the bullet.
Either of those would be worth a try.
This sadly reminds me a bit of the last days of dial up, where someone would find a new small ISP, which provided a good service, then everyone flocked to them, and they soon went over capacity. I hope IDNet can do something to rectify these issues, because this isn't doing them any favours. :(
Quote from: Simon on Jul 21, 2009, 11:59:56
This sadly reminds me a bit of the last days of dial up, where someone would find a new small ISP, which provided a good service, then everyone flocked to them, and they soon went over capacity. I hope IDNet can do something to rectify these issues, because this isn't doing them any favours. :(
The thing is Simon how many people can they get on WBC? if like myself many are stuck on ADSL Max then new capacity will cost and not really be worth it :-\ that could lead to issues if people start swapping back from WBc as a few have now :(
I think you can't swap back???? you are just re profiled back to adsl max on the same equipment so presumably you will still use the same equipment and route from the exchange as WBC?
Quote from: stevethegas on Jul 21, 2009, 12:26:46
I think you can't swap back???? you are just re profiled back to adsl max on the same equipment so presumably you will still use the same equipment and route from the exchange as WBC?
I didnt realise that Steve, well I am at a loss unless IDnet cut back on adsl max capacity when WBC went live :dunno: or its a mysterious BT glitch, I have seen grumblings from other small ISP's I am a bit lost really ???
I am not sure I am right Gary but if there're pulling DSLAM from exchanges I see no other solution. My worry is that the old system will be left to rot whilst attention and service is diverted to WBC
BT are indeed, we understand, reprofiling the line to act like a Max connection.
Checked IDNet service status a few moments ago, described as 'Good Service' for all categories. :dunno:
Quote from: stevethegas on Jul 21, 2009, 12:44:24
I am not sure I am right Gary but if there're pulling DSLAM from exchanges I see no other solution. My worry is that the old system will be left to rot whilst attention and service is diverted to WBC
Well if thats the case my speeds will get so slow I will just go for a cheap and not cheerful provider, as my exchange has no WBC date at all, I would not pay a premium to have a dead in the water service, and with no sign of LLU either it really would make sense, I can see BT leaving that system to do as you say and the ISP's not giving a t*ss about it either as its a pain and expensive, maybe it will get to the point they will not take on new adsl max lines at all, now that would not surprise me.
(http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr89/TWM_mynydd/pingfile.png)
How are these for random pings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bawl:
Please, what is going on?
I smashed my PS3 controller into a million pieces Sunday night due to a ping, download, upload.
I pay the £25:00 just to game, can IDNnet still provide the service? ???
Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Your DSL connection rate: 8128 kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP profile for your line is - 7150 kbps
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 3889 kbps
If you wish to discuss these results please contact your ISP.
I have to say I really have had about enough of this now, the speed drop is massive, at night its 6607kbps in the day its 3889kbps today and I seriously doubt its the exchange, its been green for ages, where I live is not full of young kids its old people and disabled and most I have asked so far don't have computers that's why we are a BT only exchange with no WBC date, there are so few users here. I would contact support, but I know IDNet will say the speed is acceptable for the product >:(
My Pings have gone up as well
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 53ms, Maximum = 104ms, Average = 79ms
I honestly don't know what's going on with pings. I'm told that the network is re-balanced and there's no congestion, so I'm left with believing IDNet and blaming BT for poor capacity on the DSLAM VPs and backhaul, or not believing IDNet. The fact that WBC doesn't seem to be suffering suggests to me that it's a BT issue. :(
Quote from: Rik on Jul 21, 2009, 14:22:29
I honestly don't know what's going on with pings. I'm told that the network is re-balanced and there's no congestion, so I'm left with believing IDNet and blaming BT for poor capacity on the DSLAM VPs and backhaul, or not believing IDNet. The fact that WBC doesn't seem to be suffering suggests to me that it's a BT issue. :(
If this is the trend for thouse of us not on WBC I can see myself calling it quits on IDnet Rik, paying a premium does not really matter anymore as it does not define your level of service it seems
That is a real fear, Gary. Ultimately, all non-LLU ISPs are dependent on what BT deliver. Things should improve in the nxt few months when ISP Connect goes live and IDNet can move people on non-WBC exchanges to the hostlink.
Quote from: Rik on Jul 21, 2009, 14:28:55
That is a real fear, Gary. Ultimately, all non-LLU ISPs are dependent on what BT deliver. Things should improve in the nxt few months when ISP Connect goes live and IDNet can move people on non-WBC exchanges to the hostlink.
Please could you expand a little.
Are you saying I will get the service BT give no matter who the provider is?
Ping average (to www.idnet.net) is still 24ms for me. There shouldn't be any major traffic spikes as the 138th Golf Open is over and the Ashes third test doesn't start until the 30th of July.
25ms here, interleaved.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 60ms, Maximum = 99ms, Average = 83ms
still high for me :bawl:
@mynnydd
As I understand it, the ISP pays BT wholesale to route your data from the exchange to the ISP's gateway, from then on you're on the ISP's network. Kitz (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/equip.htm) has a diagram to show how it works for those of us on adsl max products (pre-21CN):
(http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/images/contention.gif)
LLU ISPs have their own equipment in the exchange, so they are free to make their own transit arrangements in getting your data to the gateway.
Quote from: Rik on Jul 21, 2009, 14:28:55
That is a real fear, Gary. Ultimately, all non-LLU ISPs are dependent on what BT deliver. Things should improve in the nxt few months when ISP Connect goes live and IDNet can move people on non-WBC exchanges to the hostlink.
So things should improve by the Autumn? :sigh: thats a long time to wait, Rik.
Have you checked your exchange status, Gary?
Quote from: Rik on Jul 21, 2009, 14:53:15
Have you checked your exchange status, Gary?
Very Green as per usual , Rik :( I can also see the cabinet from my lounge window, my stats should give me a great speed and did when I came back but its been buggy for a while and off and on since gw6 went wrong. gw5 was fast now its getting like gw6 was.
Quote from: dujas on Jul 21, 2009, 14:51:49
@mynnydd
As I understand it, the ISP pays BT wholesale to route your data from the exchange to the ISP's gateway, from then on you're on the ISP's network. Kitz (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/equip.htm) has a diagram to show how it works for those of us on adsl max products (pre-21CN):
(http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/images/contention.gif)
LLU ISPs have their own equipment in the exchange, so they are free to make their own transit arrangements in getting your data to the gateway.
Thank-you.
Thanks for that Mynnydd, it's all that cloud stuff where the troubles occur, imo.
Quote from: Gary on Jul 21, 2009, 14:54:30
Very Green as per usual , Rik :( I can also see the cabinet from my lounge window, my stats should give me a great speed and did when I came back but its been buggy for a while and off and on since gw6 went wrong. gw5 was fast now its getting like gw6 was.
At which point you are reduced to asking for a MAC and seeing whether it helps, or sitting tight, Gary, unfortunately. :(
Quote from: Rik on Jul 21, 2009, 14:59:32
At which point you are reduced to asking for a MAC and seeing whether it helps, or sitting tight, Gary, unfortunately. :(
I know Rik, think I'll use David as a yard stick or sorts and see what happens to his line, even with wbc if things improve drastically it means something is not right here, trouble is its Zen or newnet and I really should not have to be doing this, I may just go to bed and hide :hide2:
I understand. I can't remember a time when the forum was quite such an unhappy place.
Well my router was off for 12 hours this time, & still my ping looks like someone having an epileptic fit simultaneously with a heart attack.
C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com -n 20
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=198ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 80ms, Maximum = 198ms, Average = 139ms
My current ping....... :mad:
on the bright side it does seem to clear up and revert back to normal after 1.00 am, thats just kind of late to have to wait to play a game online :(
Does any one know of the pathway an adsl2+ signal takes from the exchange to the ISP? Is there a common pathway to the RAS and home gateway or is it different than adsl max
AFAIK, it's different, Steve.
Maybe we should start a highest ping competition to lighten the mood. Here's my contribution from 4pm today.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Pretty impressive, Mo. :thumb:
Mines not as impressive
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 77 ms 45 ms 113 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 78 ms 76 ms 67 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 102 ms 98 ms 76 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 73 ms 77 ms 81 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 64 ms 60 ms 49 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
You need to try harder Gary, I have just rebooted my router (again) so I am out of the competition for an hour or so until my ping goes back up.
I have just been on the phone with IDNet (Miriam.... sounds like a nice girl, shame I am married :whistle:). Sent her a lot of info (ping, tracert, line stats and a full connection analysis from VisualRoute SupportPro) and I am waiting to hear back. I hope that she may be able to get to the bottom of my, or should i say our, problems
Just had the router off for an hour & no improvement...again:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Karser>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 121ms, Maximum = 147ms, Average = 138ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Karser>
There's nothing anyone can say here that's going to help you, unfortunately. Some people are affected, some are not. I've checked with IDNet twice today, and the network is fully balanced again and there's ample headroom. That leaves an equipment fault affecting some users but not others, or BT capacity issues at exchanges and in backhaul. TBH, my suspicion is that BT are not investing enough in the current network because their future is with, initially, WBC and then FTTC. I can't prove this, though, and getting hard data is impossible.
The best advice I can give you, therefore, is that if ping times matter to you, you should migrate and see if someone else can do better for you.
C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 124ms, Maximum = 196ms, Average = 154ms
Beat ya...nah nah nah :yeay:
Quote from: Fox on Jul 21, 2009, 18:26:23
C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 124ms, Maximum = 196ms, Average = 154ms
Beat ya...nah nah nah :yeay:
:nana:
Quote from: stevethegas on Jul 21, 2009, 16:40:42
Does any one know of the pathway an adsl2+ signal takes from the exchange to the ISP? Is there a common pathway to the RAS and home gateway or is it different than adsl max
This is the information I was looking for
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/21cn_broadband.php
I presume with iDnet we are talking WBMC It will be interesting to see if the ipstream connect to the hostlink improves the situation for some users.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Rik on Jul 21, 2009, 18:24:52
There's nothing anyone can say here that's going to help you, unfortunately. Some people are affected, some are not. I've checked with IDNet twice today, and the network is fully balanced again and there's ample headroom. That leaves an equipment fault affecting some users but not others, or BT capacity issues at exchanges and in backhaul. TBH, my suspicion is that BT are not investing enough in the current network because their future is with, initially, WBC and then FTTC. I can't prove this, though, and getting hard data is impossible.
The best advice I can give you, therefore, is that if ping times matter to you, you should migrate and see if someone else can do better for you.
Its the fact pages take an age to load Rik, with my throughput and latency it was abysmal this afternoon browsing, and since I have the choice of Bt, BT or BT I am stuffed, so are you saying that's it for all non WBC :sigh: I'm going back to bed ;)
Quote from: stevethegas on Jul 21, 2009, 18:37:06
I presume with iDnet we are talking WBMC It will be interesting to see if the ipstream connect to the hostlink improves the situation for some users.
We'll know in a few months, Steve.
It no good for you Gary but my adsl max on .net is fine at present (with the odd spike).
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=17.022 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=15.859 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=17.877 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=16.629 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=17.221 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=30.246 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=19.772 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=31.462 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=19.013 ms
Quote from: Gary on Jul 21, 2009, 18:38:48
Its the fact pages take an age to load Rik, with my throughput and latency it was abysmal this afternoon browsing, and since I have the choice of Bt, BT or BT I am stuffed, so are you saying that's it for all non WBC :sigh: I'm going back to bed ;)
I'm saying the vast majority of customers are not having problems, Gary, so we either assume a small group are connected to a faulty piece of IDNet kit, which I would hope would not be the case, or that BT are under-investing in capacity, both VP and backhaul. If it's the former, a change of ISP
may produce a change of VP. If it's the latter, the pain is inescapable without going LLU. The best advice we can now give members is that if the service is not acceptable, then try another ISP. It may not produce an improvement, but it may be cheaper and, therefore, more acceptable. :(
Quote from: stevethegas on Jul 21, 2009, 18:43:00
It no good for you Gary but my adsl max on .net is fine at present (with the odd spike).
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=17.022 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=15.859 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=17.877 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=16.629 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=17.221 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=30.246 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=19.772 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=31.462 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=19.013 ms
I seem to b trapped between a rock and a hard place, and no easy answer, tbh if this is how its going to be on most BT ISP's on non WBC lines I am really considering retiring the laptop, and ending the line, because I am paying to much for to little, its not worth it, and I am not going into a long contract on adsl max :( so what do I do :dunno:
Quote from: Rik on Jul 21, 2009, 18:45:49
I'm saying the vast majority of customers are not having problems, Gary, so we either assume a small group are connected to a faulty piece of IDNet kit, which I would hope would not be the case, or that BT are under-investing in capacity, both VP and backhaul. If it's the former, a change of ISP may produce a change of VP. If it's the latter, the pain is inescapable without going LLU. The best advice we can now give members is that if the service is not acceptable, then try another ISP. It may not produce an improvement, but it may be cheaper and, therefore, more acceptable. :(
I see your point but most small ISP's charge the same, and I do not want a years contract with BT Adsl Max, thats like shooting yourself in the foot, and its still not much cheaper really as I have no other alternative to Adsl Max. Damned if you do, damned if you don't it seems, thanks to BT.
How about trying someone like AAISP, who say they will fix your line problems or your money back?
Quote from: Rik on Jul 21, 2009, 18:53:55
How about trying someone like AAISP, who say they will fix your line problems or your money back?
I thought of that but my peak useage so far this month is 8.79Gb so thats a no no, looks as though I have to ride it out Rik, which makes me fairly unhappy but at least its only a one month contract, you have to look at the bright side :)
Zen or Newnet?
Quote from: Rik on Jul 21, 2009, 18:59:41
Zen or Newnet
True but if its BT I am going to get the same issues, changing providers is a pain Rik, especially if there is nothing wrong, I see familiar threads across the ISP's threads, enough to think this will not go away on its own, Rik. :dunno: I'll just have to see. Thanks for the advice :) :karma: you really need a Karma without a happy face for moments like this ;)
These posts are really sad :( We all appreciate Riks efforts to shore up the 'problems' for IDNet, thanks Rik. :thumb:
However, it would be nice to have some input from IDNet support rather than leaving the 'dirty work' to dear old Rik who deserves a medal in my opinion ;)
:iagree:
I think I will have to sit it out, reduce my useage and drop to a cheaper tarrif till things either change or I get another option, which could be a long time, so best not worry.
mmm im suffering today as well but it has been pretty bad for a while
I just put it down to exchange congestion
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
>ping www.idnet.co.uk
Pinging www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 139ms, Maximum = 158ms, Average = 149ms
>ping www.idnet.co.uk
Pinging www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 96ms, Maximum = 159ms, Average = 116ms
just reset my router and much the same
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
>ping www.idnet.co.uk
Pinging www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 163ms, Maximum = 209ms, Average = 189ms
>ping www.idnet.co.uk
Pinging www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 135ms, Maximum = 193ms, Average = 160ms
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 36ms, Maximum = 40ms, Average = 37ms
C:\Users\Mist>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 115ms, Maximum = 140ms, Average = 125ms
Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Your DSL connection rate: 4640 kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP profile for your line is - 4000 kbps
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 1211 kbps
consecutive pings swinging about somewhat plus rather low throughput on GW5 !!!!!
Should say I am on GW5 adsl max
regards
Jim
Thats strange Just e mailed support and have no reply yet however pings have improved
>ping www.idnet.co.uk
Pinging www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 50ms, Maximum = 89ms, Average = 61ms
Quote from: Rik on Jul 21, 2009, 14:22:29
I honestly don't know what's going on with pings. I'm told that the network is re-balanced and there's no congestion, so I'm left with believing IDNet and blaming BT for poor capacity on the DSLAM VPs and backhaul, or not believing IDNet. The fact that WBC doesn't seem to be suffering suggests to me that it's a BT issue. :(
:but:
Rik, in that case, what I find puzzling is that all the users with problems appear to be on gw5. I don't think I have seen one from anyone on another gateway complaining about speed or pings.
John
From what I've seen so far we all appear to be on adsl max too, not seen anyone complain thats on wbc that I can remember.
I am on GW5, and although my pings seem slightly higher than average at the moment, I don't seem to be suffering as much as some. Pings were high yesterday, so I rebooted my router, but that was over 24 hours ago, and pings now are:
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 39ms, Maximum = 50ms, Average = 46ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 32ms, Maximum = 78ms, Average = 45ms
My pings and speed have been all over the place for the last few days, but have been better this afternoon and evening.
I hope it stays that way - I don't want to have to think about moving ISP. :fingers:
Quote from: lodge on Jul 21, 2009, 21:43:00
:but:
Rik, in that case, what I find puzzling is that all the users with problems appear to be on gw5. I don't think I have seen one from anyone on another gateway complaining about speed or pings.
John
And I would like to add to that this was my ping graph from last Tuesday 14th July the day after the Idnets central keeled over & was rebooted, sadly it only lasted for the one night before it went crazy again.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Never did get a reply back from support regarding the mad ping issue, but its still up and down, websites taking forever to load, then its fine then it's slow again. But apart from that everything is fine :bawl:
I am on GW4 and my pings are crazy any time of the day, 11pm at night and still 100+. I am almost tempted to ask for a switch to GW5 if that is possible because I cannot believe the pings can be any worse than I have experienced over the last couple of months.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 44ms, Maximum = 102ms, Average = 79ms
Maybe somebody can explain why doing a tracert for me always seems to show GW2 as being the problem?. I am not sure how to decipher the information but that hop does not like me :bawl:
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com
2 32 ms 30 ms 57 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 31 ms 31 ms 30 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 195 ms 272 ms 239 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 41 ms 37 ms 33 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 30 ms 32 ms 34 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com
2 40 ms 32 ms 40 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 59 ms 45 ms 30 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 33 ms 30 ms 300 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 30 ms 31 ms 32 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 30 ms 30 ms 34 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com
2 40 ms 110 ms 41 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 37 ms 36 ms 40 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 187 ms 243 ms 54 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 30 ms 32 ms 31 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 32 ms 32 ms 30 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Hmm cant seem to put it down to just one myself:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Karser>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 66 ms 45 ms 42 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 117 ms 101 ms 92 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 249 ms 275 ms 292 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 41 ms 35 ms 57 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 90 ms 87 ms 75 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Karser>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 171 ms 64 ms 74 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 * 53 ms 33 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 25 ms 31 ms 45 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 31 ms 39 ms 40 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 86 ms 62 ms 70 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Karser>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 117 ms 123 ms 79 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 53 ms 58 ms 78 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 41 ms 37 ms 28 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 51 ms 34 ms 40 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 35 ms 40 ms 38 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Karser>
No, your right, the whole lot is a bag of spanners.
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms
2 129 ms 129 ms 121 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 121 ms 169 ms 158 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 168 ms 163 ms 160 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 182 ms 185 ms 185 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 124 ms 125 ms 127 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Quote from: Mohux_Jnr on Jul 21, 2009, 23:07:34
Maybe somebody can explain why doing a tracert for me always seems to show GW2 as being the problem?. I am not sure how to decipher the information but that hop does not like me :bawl:
As far as I am aware pings returned from intermediate hops don't really tell you much unless they are consistently missing (*) which is an indication of packet loss. It could well be that that particular hop has low priority on ping requests.
It's the ping to the destination address that really counts. I'm sure someone will correct me if that's not the case :)
Quote from: Mohux_Jnr on Jul 21, 2009, 22:56:23
I am on GW4 and my pings are crazy any time of the day, 11pm at night and still 100+. I am almost tempted to ask for a switch to GW5 if that is possible because I cannot believe the pings can be any worse than I have experienced over the last couple of months.
You do not want to be on gw5 with me im seeing 300ms here right now good riddance idnet tbh :mad:
I too am GW5 and ADSL Max but I am nice and stable since my line was fixed the other week. Games have been constantly smooth as silk for the first time since what seems like when the new pipe was installed.
C:\Documents and Settings\deano>ping www.idnet.co.uk -n 20
Pinging www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 24ms
My ping was slightly lower before the new pipe awhile back but I'm not worried about that now that it's stopped stuttering "choking" in game. It could have been my line all along though and it going down slowly before it was fixed.
Quote from: juiceuk on Jul 22, 2009, 00:40:14
I too am GW5 and ADSL Max but I am nice and stable since my line was fixed the other week. Games have been constantly smooth as silk for the first time since what seems like when the new pipe was installed.
C:\Documents and Settings\deano>ping www.idnet.co.uk -n 20
Pinging www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 24ms
My ping was slightly lower before the new pipe awhile back but I'm not worried about that now that it's stopped stuttering "choking" in game. It could have been my line all along though and it going down slowly before it was fixed.
Iwould love to be in your situation .
My post above didn't quite turn out as intended so take two :)
Quote from: Mohux_Jnr on Jul 21, 2009, 23:07:34
Maybe somebody can explain why doing a tracert for me always seems to show GW2 as being the problem?. I am not sure how to decipher the information but that hop does not like me :bawl:
As far as I am aware pings returned from intermediate hops don't really tell you much unless they are consistently missing (*) which is an indication of packet loss. It could well be that that particular hop has low priority on ping requests.
It's the ping to the destination address that really counts. I'm sure someone will correct me if that's not the case
Many thanks, sounds logical, unlike the fact that many people do not have an issue and others are at their wits end with this ping debacle. Location, router or hardware differences or just the way the wind is blowing, its damn frustrating if you are a sufferer.
I can fully sympathise. I run a large on-line gaming clan as well as a World of Warcraft Guild so I totally understand the problems caused by high latency :(
Zappa is spot on about the intermediate hops not nattering unless they show packet loss.
I tend to agree with you, Jim. Based on all I've read here, I believe that exchange, and possibly backhaul congestion, is behind this.
back to normal this morning ?
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
>ping www.idnet.co.uk
Pinging www.idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 50ms, Maximum = 54ms, Average = 51ms
>
regards
Jim C
Still quite high, Jim, even for a heavily interleaved line, but certainly an improvement.
Well for the first time in a long time my ping seems to be ok :fingers:
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 40ms, Maximum = 40ms, Average = 40ms
I hope it lasts. I havent rebooted my router since yesterday....so far so good :phew:
On gw5 here and Max, today after a day or so of stability in the ping department, pings of 41 average I find that they have indeed returned to the lows I used to enjoy 21ms average to idnet.net and multiplay.co.uk.
Hope the good old days are returning.
:fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers:
Mine have been ok most of the day, but started to go south just after 2pm, not as bad as it has been ...yet :P
[attachment deleted by admin]
Got on at 8 this morning & everything seemed ok, then 9am, my adsl went out for a few seconds totally, not just the internet light on the modem, the adsl light too, & now things are back to normal in the worst possible way as you can see below. I have tried the 30 min router reboot to no avail.
[attachment deleted by admin]
For once things are ok for me right now :fingers:
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 30ms
Fertilising the lawn is much more fun than this ping thing, I decided yesterday ;D
Finally got a reply back from support and they asked BT to turn off interleaving, and the ping's have now dropped to the lowest I've seen them ever. Well chuffed. Hopefully it stays that way :fingers:
Bear in mind that, if the BT system decides you need interleaving, it will turn it back on at the drop of a hat. So, avoid multiple re-syncs and be careful to power down the router during thunderstorms.
Talking of which a thunder storm has just started :bawl:
Support monitored my connection today, this was their results:
I have been monitoring your connection, and can see you have an average ping response of about 23-29ms, I am only able to see the increase in the ping response times when your connection starts to transfer data. This would be expected as ICMP takes a low priority over your normal traffic. below is the test results from one of my monitoring systems below:
575 packets transmitted, 574 received, 0% packet loss, time 574753ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 20.763/29.488/490.829/24.811 ms, pipe 2
This is nowhere near what I am getting at my end, & I am truly at a loss as to what to do next, just for clarification 574753 ms is just short of 10 minutes right?
It is.
What do you have running on your machine, bearing in mind that IDNet are using a dedicated ping routine to your router, so their data is 'pure'.
"Bear in mind that, if the BT system decides you need interleaving, it will turn it back on at the drop of a hat. So, avoid multiple re-syncs and be careful to power down the router during thunderstorms."
So there is no way to have it permanently disabled?
I got mine off yesterday connections been stable since just like it used to be, 21ms pings 6.5meg throughput and its almost 10 past 4 in the afternoon!
Synced at 8000k, I wonder will it connect at 8128 again? And it takes 5 days for the profile to catch up yes?
Afaik, no. :(
As Sebby says, even if it's set off, the BT software will turn interleaving back on if it deems it necessary and, usually, once that's happened, BT won't accept further requests to set it off manually.
On my machine I'm running XP pro, I have all automatic updates off right down to javascript, I use windows built in messenger, not the msn bloated junk, windows media player 11 (again with all automatic updates off ) to play mp3's while its not worth me trying to play games. I've included a screenshot of my task manager, although I've been through everything there & all seems as it should.
Alcfdrtm is realtek driver
rthdcpl is also part of realtek drivers
khalmnpr is part of my logitech drivers
nost_LM is drivers for my belkin nostromo
PnkbstrA & B - for those that dont play, its part of an anticheat system employed by many of todays big games, in my case its from cod: modern warfare & world at war.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Have you tried booting into safe mode with network support, and pinging from there?
Running enditall stops most unnecessary services
To Rik - yes I have it was one of the first things support asked me to do, absolutely no difference.
To Glenn - None of those services should need ending, I've run fine with them all before, & they would have all been running the day after the central outage that happened last week, where for that one night my pings were as they should be ( see screenie below )
I have just left it running for the last hour while I have been out, only task manager & ping graph running apart from those services, no messenger, no media player, & the results are in the second picture, you can see there is next to nothing happening on my network in the task manager yet my pings are all over, I'm going to forward these results to support & see if they have any more ideas.
Edit: typo
[attachment deleted by admin]
Looking at that, it suggests exchange congestion cutting in.
Its been a bit better fri & sat night, still getting some huge spikes at 1500-2500 tho, but usable again at least.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 113ms, Maximum = 144ms, Average = 125ms
At this time in the morning! I've been playing battlefield 2142 with someone thats a "dick" and is lucky enough to have a ping of 8ms but still I can beat him and now he's the man because I've got a ping of nearly 200ms. I've had a few weeks of nice gaming since the new pipe without stuttering "choking" in my games but if this starts again I'm not being too patient again.
What can we say, Juice. The problem affects a handful of people, there's no obvious geographic pattern and we know the IDNet network has adequate capacity, ie no congestion. My best guess remains that this is a BT issue, and I noticed a thread on ThinkBroadband yesterday where a Plusnet customer was having the same problems.
I too had a high latency last night around 11.30PM, but a router reboot fixed it, taking the average ping to www.idnet.net down to 19ms. That's all you can do really, if re-connecting doesn't work then pass on the ping data to Idnet support and hope they can find a pattern.
Quote from: Rik on Jul 26, 2009, 10:23:55
What can we say, Juice. The problem affects a handful of people, there's no obvious geographic pattern and we know the IDNet network has adequate capacity, ie no congestion. My best guess remains that this is a BT issue, and I noticed a thread on ThinkBroadband yesterday where a Plusnet customer was having the same problems.
I'm not so sure it is a bt problem, I'm now migrated away and my pings are back to low levels again, even with interleaving currently switched on. I'm seeing no slowdowns, no spikes and there appears to be no sign of the 'exchange congestion' that customer support here had suggested the problem was.
Who have you migrated to?
adsl24.co.uk
WBC or Max I wonder?
It's normal adsl max.
Thats one of the companies I've been looking at if I cant get it fixed here soon.
Quote from: Pmx on Jul 26, 2009, 15:15:47
I'm not so sure it is a bt problem, I'm now migrated away and my pings are back to low levels again, even with interleaving currently switched on. I'm seeing no slowdowns, no spikes and there appears to be no sign of the 'exchange congestion' that customer support here had suggested the problem was.
Was that from WBC back to Max, or Max to Max?
When did you migrate?
:blush: Oops. I jumped the gun a bit last night as the high pings only lasted a short while. Drink is :evil:
;D
That's max to max, which is all that is available on my exchange. The migration went through on Thursday. :)
Interesting, thanks. :)
Would just like to add that i migrated last week because of the high ping problem and now i have no problems either.Ping is low and steady with no spikes etc....I guess the mystery deepens :think:
Where to?
Aquiss
Thanks. :thumb:
No problem.If this ping issue get's sorted out i'll be back with you guys in a flash ;D
It's interesting me that both people who've migrated and resolved their problems have gone to Enta resellers. I wonder if IDNet can draw any conclusions from that?
I think multplay.co.uk website and game servers are hosted on enta.net (if that's where they play)? Pings pass via their hops when tracerouting their IPs at least.
Interesting, thanks. :)
My server isn't with Multiplay.It's with Killercreation if that's any help.
Could you do me a favour and ping www.idnet.net, then paste the results here please? If you could manage a tracert as well, that would be great. :thumb: If you have results from when you were with IDNet, that would be even better. :)
I havn't kept any of my old ping result's i'm afraid.Here's what i have now though...
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=55
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 17ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 18ms
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms 1 ms menu [192.168.1.254]
2 19 ms 17 ms 21 ms lns09.inx.dsl.enta.net [78.33.38.162]
3 19 ms 17 ms 17 ms gi4-40.interxion.dsl.enta.net [78.33.38.161]
4 19 ms 17 ms 17 ms te2-3.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.209]
5 20 ms 18 ms 19 ms te5-1.gs1.core.enta.net [87.127.236.85]
6 20 ms 17 ms 19 ms te5-4.telehouse-east2.core.enta.net [78.33.35.217]
7 19 ms 19 ms 17 ms idnet-gw-b.lonap.net [193.203.5.133]
8 19 ms 17 ms 18 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
9 21 ms 19 ms 19 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Smooth. :) Thanks for that. The more data we can collect, the more chance IDNet have of tracing the problem. :karma:
Did you go with the gaming package or the normal ones?, & if your results are that good why would you come back later?
Quote from: Turin on Jul 26, 2009, 18:13:47
Aquiss
They were on my shortlist before I joined IDNet, so I'd be interested to hear how they perform. :)
I went with a gaming package.The only thing i don't like is the support forum leaves alot to be desired and i've heard mixed review's regarding phone support.It's purely customer support that would bring me back to idnet and although i'm getting good ping time's etc they're not far off from what i had originaly with idnet before all this ping issue cropped up.
Well, of course, IDNetters leaves other customer support forums way behind. ;D
Quote from: Simon on Jul 26, 2009, 20:46:48
They were on my shortlist before I joined IDNet, so I'd be interested to hear how they perform. :)
They would perform the same as any other Enta reseller. :)
As requested earlier, this is my ping/trace into idnet now, with interleaving on. Below is how it was when I was with Idnet, as you can see the difference is pretty significant!
ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=55
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=55
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 26ms
tracert idnet.com
Tracing route to idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 28 ms 27 ms 27 ms lns05.inx.dsl.enta.net [78.33.38.146]
3 27 ms 26 ms 26 ms gi4-44.interxion.dsl.enta.net [78.33.38.145]
4 29 ms 30 ms 26 ms te2-3.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.209]
5 33 ms 32 ms 31 ms te5-1.gs1.core.enta.net [87.127.236.85]
6 31 ms 29 ms 34 ms te5-4.telehouse-east2.core.enta.net [78.33.35.21
7]
7 29 ms 32 ms 31 ms idnet-gw-b.lonap.net [193.203.5.133]
8 31 ms 28 ms 28 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
9 31 ms 30 ms 30 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Quote from: Pmx on Jul 20, 2009, 21:04:59
Hi all, unfortunately having only been with IDNET for 1 month I've decided to migrate away as the standard of connection has been pretty awful throughout.
We're on a fairly short line and generally connect at 8128 to the exchange, and before moving to IDNET would get pings of 15-25 to the bbc etc along with speeds up 6-7mb. Since moving over it's been awful, with speeds regularly below 2-3mb and sometimes way lower at less than 300k!! Pings have also been really high making game playing pretty much impossible, this is a typical ping result:
C:\Users\Paul>tracert bbc.co.uk
Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 3 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 120 ms 102 ms 101 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 123 ms 101 ms 101 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 123 ms 101 ms 101 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
5 124 ms 101 ms 101 ms 212.58.238.129
6 129 ms 101 ms 101 ms virtual-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]
Trace complete.
ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 59ms, Maximum = 136ms, Average = 105ms
Just thought I'd post feedback, on the plus side the customer support people at idnet have been really helpful but the long and the short of it is that the connection has never been right, which is a shame.
This Thursday (the 30th) onwards will be 'interesting' as it's when the Ashes resumes, the third test at Edgbaston.
Quote from: Pmx on Jul 27, 2009, 13:38:22
As requested earlier, this is my ping/trace into idnet now, with interleaving on. Below is how it was when I was with Idnet, as you can see the difference is pretty significant!
It is, isn't it. :( Thanks for that. :thumb:
Quote from: dujas on Jul 27, 2009, 14:10:35
This Thursday (the 30th) onwards will be 'interesting' as it's when the Ashes resumes, the third test at Edgbaston.
Don't. ;D
To the untrained eye here it looks like there is a problem with IDNet's network at Telehouse, coupled with a 4% packet loss at the first node. The graphic below shows the rates I can achieve (best case) and how bad it can be (worst case). All over the period of half a minute :eek4:
I have submitted a ticket. Guess I'll wait and see.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Yours was one of the cases I forwarded to support about an hour ago, JB. Have you seen no improvement? (ie when was that tracert?)
It was two minutes before the post Rik.
Still totally up and down Rik.
Just done this one at 1728.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Thanks, JB, your case is being looked at.
Hi All
Sometimes BT send more connections to us down some pipes than others, which therefore become congested. We then have to manually move customers across to other pipes in order to get the traffic loads on the Centrals properly balanced again. We have enough aggregated bandwidth capacity to cope with normal loads and so once we can get back to regular levels things should improve.
Regards
Simon
Thanks, Simon. :)
Quote from: Rik on Jul 27, 2009, 17:57:41
Thanks, Simon. :)
Rik
I bet you are not a little relieved that Simon has provided an explanation of the possible culprit, hopefully things will get sorted soon :fingers:
Indeed I am, Q. :)
Keep your chin up ;)
Just to add another graph to the collection, I have been getting a spike approximately every 35 - 40 seconds
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: quandam on Jul 27, 2009, 18:24:31
Keep your chin up ;)
It's my stomach I'm trying to keep up. ;D
You need a belt and braces ;D
A corset, more like. Time to order a new kilt with reinforced gusset methinks. ;D
Quote from: Rik on Jul 27, 2009, 18:37:16
A corset, more like. Time to order a new kilt with reinforced gusset methinks. ;D
Thanks for keeping the public face of IDNet afloat via IDNetters :thumb:
My pleasure. ;)
Quote from: Glenn on Jul 27, 2009, 18:28:06
Just to add another graph to the collection, I have been getting a spike approximately every 35 - 40 seconds
Glenn that graph is of particular interest to me. I don't suppose you have another PC/Laptop that you can use to see if you get the same regular pulse?
I'll try from my racing (gaming) PC
With a pulse rate that low, I'd be reaching for the defibrillator. ;D
It's worse here :(
[attachment deleted by admin]
nice tits up,used my mac code today gone with Aquiss .
I expect more will leave with gaming pigns that resemble a shambles...
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=124
Good luck with Enta.
Quote from: Sebby on Jul 27, 2009, 19:31:31
Good luck with Enta.
to be fair given how often of late pings have been cr*p with idnet,then i will take that luck :)
cannot be any worse
Do let us know how it compares, Mark. It's always useful to see what the competition is like.
Quote from: Glenn on Jul 27, 2009, 19:25:57
It's worse here :(
It also appears to have a different pattern to it. The first graph has a distinctive pulse of lost packets. I have a PC here that produces the same ping graph pattern no matter what the quality of the connection and I can't for the life of me work out what's causing it. The frequency of the pulse, 35-40 seconds, is exactly as displayed in your first graph and it causes the accumulated latency figure to be a number of times higher than the base.
I have never seen it like that until yesterday, the only thing that happened yesterday was my router rebooted itself, then I had no internet access at around 6 am in the morning, when I got home from work I rebooted it again to get a connection back. After that I got the 35 - 40 second pattern, on 1 laptop, but not the PC. Both the laptop and PC go through the same wiring, Speedtouch 585 v6 > Linksys PSUS4 switch so I have no idea what could cause it.
Very odd indeed, I wish I could pin it down.
I've swapped routers and connected to the test socket, I still get the same 35 - 40 second time out cycle. Does yours do the same from the test socket?
My migration doesnt come through till next tuesday.In the meantime putting up with these unplayable pings...............
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=124
What exactly are idnet doing regarding the balancing because that is not looking too good for me here,luckily my hairs pretty short else i would be bald by now :laugh:
Quote from: MarkE on Jul 29, 2009, 17:18:59
luckily my hairs pretty short else i would be bald by now :laugh:
Stop boasting. ;D
Have you spoken to support? The network should be re-balanced now (I checked at lunchtime).
All day my pings have been pretty good they maxed at 40ms earlier but now they are fine.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 31ms, Average = 30ms
Quote from: MarkE on Jul 29, 2009, 17:18:59
My migration doesnt come through till next tuesday.In the meantime putting up with these unplayable pings...............
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=124
What exactly are idnet doing regarding the balancing because that is not looking too good for me here,luckily my hairs pretty short else i would be bald by now :laugh:
here are mine to that address
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping multiplay.co.uk
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 36ms, Average = 32ms
I'll cheer you all up ;D
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Glenn on Jul 29, 2009, 17:30:20
I'll cheer you all up ;D
Stop using spaghetti to your router ;D
Quote from: Rik on Jul 29, 2009, 17:20:33
Stop boasting. ;D
Have you spoken to support? The network should be re-balanced now (I checked at lunchtime).
I gave up on support and settled on biding my time to migrate Rik lol
Quote from: MarkE on Jul 29, 2009, 17:33:19
I gave up on support and settled on biding my time to migrate Rik lol
I get 32ms to your multiplay addy ping wise as I said since they balanced the network, email them, you are only here for a few days, whats there to loose ;D
Quote from: Gary on Jul 29, 2009, 17:32:22
Stop using spaghetti to your router ;D
Brian is currently looking into the problem
Of spaghetti! :eek4:
It grows n trees you know ;D
I do, I do. :)
Going to request my mac tomorrow I think
[attachment deleted by admin]
Looking at my graph and karser's, the noise on both, increase around the same time ??? To me that would appear to be congestion on the central, I'm most likely wrong though.
Congestion can't affect NM though, that's a purely local issue.
I was referring to the ping time increase
Ah, it's just you said noise. ;)
A poor choice of words :blush:
You know they never get past me, Glenn. ;D
Just wanted to mention that I am also occasionally getting high pings here (although it appears to be fine at the moment) - currently around 26 ms, but was >100 ms just an hour ago.
Hi and welcome to the forum. :welc: :karma:
Is this a regular occurrence, does it tend to happen at specific times?
So far I have seen these high ping times only in the early evening (5.30 pm to maybe 7 pm), probably 3 days per week for the last couple of weeks (since 22nd June).
Have you talked to support at all? It might be worth a word, to check that you're not on a congested pipe, but given the timings, my hunch would be exchange congestion.
:welc: :karma:
Rik, I did contact support on the 22nd of June (even pointing out that it could be some kind of congestion), but I then didn't follow up when support requested a couple of BT speedtests (partly, because I couldn't get the BT speedtester working at all and partly because the problem then disappeared for the next couple of days).
I was kind of hoping that someone could easily check congestion levels in the exchange (or whereever - at specific times of the day). I mean, there must be better ways to analyse a problem than to use a dodgy Java speedtester applet in a web browser.
You can check for exchange congestion yourself, here (http://usertools.plus.net/exchanges/), but I think it's general, not specific to times. The BT Speedtests are a good indicator for IDNet, as to the status of your line, although, we all know what a pain they can be sometimes. :)
:welc: :karma:
Pings quite bad as I type to www.idnet.net, averaging 115ms.
*edit* It has resolved itself without router reboot, but remains a tad 'spikey'.
It's BT who require the speedtests I believe.
:welc: :karma:
:welc: :karma:
Quote from: cmeerw on Jul 29, 2009, 21:12:02
I was kind of hoping that someone could easily check congestion levels in the exchange (or whereever - at specific times of the day). I mean, there must be better ways to analyse a problem than to use a dodgy Java speedtester applet in a web browser.
The speed tests do a bit more than that, and are the only evidence BT accept of a problem, unfortunately.
Quote from: Simon on Jul 29, 2009, 22:16:43
You can check for exchange congestion yourself, here (http://usertools.plus.net/exchanges/), but I think it's general, not specific to times. The BT Speedtests are a good indicator for IDNet, as to the status of your line, although, we all know what a pain they can be sometimes. :)
:welc: :karma:
looking at my exchange it says something called Virtual Paths are Red.....see below
--------------------------------------------
BT is reporting that some of the virtual paths at this exchange are not operating within BT Wholesale's planning guidance, although they are still operating within the product specification.
At busy times, your ADSL connection may operate at a reduced speed, although not all customers on your exchange may be affected. You should only contact support if there is no current ETA date set.
The ETA fix time is: 18 Jun 09
Record last updated: 12 Jun 09
--------------------------------------
Given my connection and speed recently seem poor, plus numerous disconnections whilst online should I moan ? The ETA is long gone by a month ?
You can try, but BT do things at their own speed come what may. That said, there are signs that things are beginning to happen.
I'm a happy chappie sort of. On Brian's request he asked for a ping graph with the laptop in safe mode, it gave the same results :( So I swapped the laptop for another I have here with a broken screen, I ran the ping graph on there and it works.
All I need to do now is rebuild this W7rc laptop.
Thanks again Brian.
So it was the laptop, Glenn?
It looks to be the case yes, no idea what is causing it though. I'm now only getting an odd spike every now and then.
Was the lappy on mains power?
Yes but so is the other one, it's sat on the docking station, the only difference between them is one is a Dell D630 with W7, the working one is a Dell D620 with XP, other than that they shared all the power etc.
I was just thinking that maybe the power supply was noisy. There goes another theory. :(
This is now a fairly persistent problem for me. I've called support before (about a month ago), it was on a Sunday and was told to leave a message but nobody ever got back to me.
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=199ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 166ms, Maximum = 199ms, Average = 178ms
Was just about to fire up my gaming PC but I guess I won't bother now.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=189ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=169ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 122ms, Maximum = 193ms, Average = 163ms
Mine are high yet again >:(
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 87ms, Maximum = 100ms, Average = 94ms
This is now getting boring and b*oody annoying
I don't think my IDNet connection has been the same since that new pipe. I'm gonna leave the router off for 30min and see if things change for the better.
C:\Documents and Settings\deano>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 72ms, Maximum = 162ms, Average = 117ms
Quote from: juiceuk on Jul 30, 2009, 23:40:33
I don't think my IDNet connection has been the same since that new pipe. I'm gonna leave the router off for 30min and see if things change for the better.
C:\Documents and Settings\deano>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 72ms, Maximum = 162ms, Average = 117ms
I think that makes things worse as you get on a new pipe and it unbalances things yet again, but to be honest who knows anymore :dunno: it should not be like this at this time of night :sigh:
I've had similar for two evenings now, when I'm online between 10-11PM I find pings are averaging 150ms and download speeds are only a third of my IP Profile, a router reboot usually returns the connection to normal.
Quote from: dujas on Jul 31, 2009, 07:59:19
I've had similar for two evenings now, when I'm online between 10-11PM I find pings are averaging 150ms and download speeds are only a third of my IP Profile, a router reboot usually returns the connection to normal.
Rebooting the router is not the saner as far as I am concerned, that's just getting you onto another pipe, it should not be that way to start with >:(
Edit: Rebooting the router is not the answer as far as I am concerned, that's just getting you onto another pipe, the pings and latency should be stable to start with if the network is rebalanced now >:(
I've spoken to support, who have no issues visible on the network. So, if you are experiencing problems, can you please carry out the following procedures, and let support have the results.
1 ) Boot to safe mode
2 ) Hit Start > Run > Type CMD and press <enter>
3 ) Type netstat -b and press <enter>
4 ) Type ping www.idnet.net and press <enter>
5 ) Type tracert www.idnet.net and press <enter>
6 ) Right-click the title bar of the window, select Edit > Select all and press <enter>
7 ) Paste those results into an email to support@idnet.net, adding information about date and time, and identifying your router make and model, together with either your IP address or your ADSL phone number.
8 ) Run a BT speed test and paste the results into the email.
By all means add further pings/tracerts to other servers.
Quote from: Rik on Jul 31, 2009, 09:49:29
I've spoken to support, who have no issues visible on the network. So, if you are experiencing problems, can you please carry out the following procedures, and let support have the results.
1 ) Boot to safe mode
2 ) Hit Start > Run > Type CMD and press <enter>
3 ) Type netstat -b and press <enter>
4 ) Type ping www.idnet.net and press <enter>
5 ) Type tracert www.idnet.net and press <enter>
6 ) Right-click the title bar of the window, select Edit > Select all and press <enter>
7 ) Paste those results into an email to support@idnet.net, adding information about date and time, and identifying your router make and model, together with either your IP address or your ADSL phone number.
8 ) Run a BT speed test and paste the results into the email.
By all means add further pings/tracerts to other servers.
I would Rik but it happens quite late at 11pm-12am and by then I'm only booting the cat off the bed, and not into safe mode on my pc, support should sit up and do it themselves from home ;D
You want the car fixed, you have to take it to the garage. ;)
Quote from: Rik on Jul 31, 2009, 09:58:03
You want the car fixed, you have to take it to the garage. ;)
Nope, the garage pick it up for us ;D
;D
The reply from support was: "One of the Virtual Paths on one of our BT pipes become rather congested last night. We have taken steps the alleviate that congestion by moving the traffic to other Paths."
Confirmed. ;)
Quote from: dujas on Jul 31, 2009, 10:52:49
The reply from support was: "One of the Virtual Paths on one of our BT pipes become rather congested last night. We have taken steps the alleviate that congestion by moving the traffic to other Paths."
Ok simple question , why? If everything is tickity boo why did that happen, Rik?
You'd have to ask IDNet, Gary. :dunno:
Quote from: Rik on Jul 31, 2009, 13:06:14
You'd have to ask IDNet, Gary. :dunno:
Its sunny, I'll talk to the plants instead, Rik ;D
Remind me how to boot to safe mode please? I seem to have slow pings.
Quote from: mogden on Jul 31, 2009, 13:27:52
Remind me how to boot to safe mode please? I seem to have slow pings.
The way I do it is msconfig then select safe boot then reboot, after just untick safeboot and reboot again
Press F8 when Windows starts to install
What is considered high pings, as i'm getting between 45ms and 58ms
plus I have xbox live which has been a bit dodgy since my upgrade to wbc
cheers
Assuming you're pinging www.idnet.net, the average should really be in the 20-35ms range, the means of connection to your router will play a part too. When the pings are 90+ it indicates something is seriously wrong.
I agree, if you are connecting to an on-line game you really want to looking for pings of 20-35ms. However there are a number of factors that can make that impossible to achieve and latency is often dictated by the destination server which may well push your ping up. I've found that anything up to 45-50ms is acceptable but after that you start to get noticeable lag.
45-58ms would be a bit borderline for me especially if that's being returned from a local address like idnet.com.
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Jul 31, 2009, 14:38:41
I agree, if you are connecting to an on-line game you really want to looking for pings of 20-35ms. However there are a number of factors that can make that impossible to achieve and latency is often dictated by the destination server which may well push your ping up. I've found that anything up to 45-50ms is acceptable but after that you start to get noticeable lag.
45-58ms would be a bit borderline for me especially if that's being returned from a local address like idnet.com.
(http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr89/TWM_mynydd/ohgoodgod.png)
Well I have been with IDnet for 18 months ish.
I have always had 100ms ping.
I play PS3, it never lags.
So I have always been at a disadvantage whilst gaming?
The other factor in pings is distance to server. A US server will be slower than a UK which will be slower than an Australian one, for example, and the further you are from London, the higher your pings will be. That's without all the other variables such as interleaving.
Quote from: Rik on Jul 31, 2009, 14:56:11
The other factor in pings is distance to server. A US server will be slower than a UK which will be slower than an Australian one, for example, and the further you are from London, the higher your pings will be. That's without all the other variables such as interleaving.
Rik could you recommend a general book on the ins and outs of broadband?
Not really, I've never seen a single source covering everything, tbh. Browsing forums like this and ThinkBroadband is cheaper and likely to get you more informed opinion than in some books anyway. Aside from the more obvious mistakes made about distances to servers. What my mind said, despite what my fingers typed, is that an American ping will be slower than a UK one, while an Australian ping will be slower still. ;)
Quote from: mynnydd on Jul 31, 2009, 14:53:12
(http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr89/TWM_mynydd/ohgoodgod.png)
Well I have been with IDnet for 18 months ish.
I have always had 100ms ping.
I play PS3, it never lags.
So I have always been at a disadvantage whilst gaming?
That depends on a number of factors including the game type. If it's an FPS game that requires split second reactions and accuracy then a ping of 100ms would put you at a disadvantage and have an effect on how other players see you in game. Game types like MMORPGs are more forgiving and due to the number of players connected to a server, sometimes in the thousands, it's likely that most players will have latencies approaching 100ms anyway.
So there's no real yes or no answer and you can not be guided by latencies reported from a gaming server. As Rik has said, the server location may well be a factor. The best test is to ping a local webserver like idnet.com and if you are getting something in the region of 20ms-35ms then that's pretty ideal for anybody's requirements.
7ms being even better though, eh Zap? ;)
Yeah ;D (and I'm still a little baffled by it to be honest).
Is it holding at that level?
(http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr89/TWM_mynydd/WOW.png)
oh my god, explain that one then ;D
I only pay 'upto 8mb' ;D
I'm not a gamer so have never worried about pings, nor understand why they are important, but mine yesterday evening and now are around 300ms. Would this account for pages feeling sluggish to start opening? Once they commence loading, speed is fine, and throughput on my 7150 profile is averaging around 5mbps at the moment, so that is acceptable too.
A router reboot last night instantly returned pings to 35ms and throughput to 6.8mbps, but pings have slowly crept up since, and speed slowed. Is it time to give up on IDNet, or is the issue understood and being worked on?
Understood and being worked on.
Quote from: Rik on Jul 31, 2009, 15:23:16
Is it holding at that level?
245ms on speedtest.net
then 101ms on speed.io straight after
so I guess (as previously advised) a manual start up ping is the only reliable test.
Thankfully got my mac code today, they told me it was almost rebalanced just 2 days ago.... looks like it
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: mynnydd on Jul 31, 2009, 15:37:22
so I guess (as previously advised) a manual start up ping is the only reliable test.
It is.
Quote from: karser on Jul 31, 2009, 15:39:24
Thankfully got my mac code today, they told me it was almost rebalanced just 2 days ago.... looks like it
Have you decided where to go? Let us know how things are, will you? :)
Quote from: Rik on Jul 31, 2009, 15:23:16
Is it holding at that level?
No, it hit 8ms once, yesterday evening. I was gutted :rofl:
@Dopamine. Pings are important because if a player positions his cursor over an object and hits the fire button with high latency the object may well have moved on before his packet of information hits the destination server. In short he'll miss the target.
In my experience 300ms would have a noticeable impact on surfing, particularly as you've found when you first hit the site.
To which we might need to add the issue of DNS response time, of course.
I'd be interested to know just what BT did to your line, have you checked to see if there's a part-used drum of fibre just up the road? ;D
Quote from: Glenn on Jul 30, 2009, 17:23:34
I'm a happy chappie sort of. On Brian's request he asked for a ping graph with the laptop in safe mode, it gave the same results :( So I swapped the laptop for another I have here with a broken screen, I ran the ping graph on there and it works.
All I need to do now is rebuild this W7rc laptop.
Thanks again Brian.
Makes me wonder if the os or software is causing a problem :dunno:
Don't forget the user in this particular instance, Pup. :evil: :out:
;D
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Jul 31, 2009, 15:50:54
No, it hit 8ms once, yesterday evening. I was gutted :rofl:
@Dopamine. Pings are important because if a player positions his cursor over an object and hits the fire button with high latency the object may well have moved on before his packet of information hits the destination server. In short he'll miss the target.
In my experience 300ms would have a noticeable impact on surfing, particularly as you've found when you first hit the site.
Indeed and then try that at an international based level playing for your country in nation cups and clanbase cups and esl invitationals and see what fun it isn't ...
I have just pinged multiplay.co.uk and im getting 300ms and i have tried router reboots.Some of the days I have had to do no less than 15 to 20 reboots to just get 100ms...
I have just phoned support and spoke to Miriam,she is going to phone me back in 30 minutes.
[EDIT] In reply to Rik... (I seem to have broken the quote button :blush:)
There's some Kelloggs Fruit 'n'Fibre in the cupboard if that counts ;D
It was the timing of it that baffles me. My line was getting progressively worse all evening and then at midnight my coach arrived, pings dropped and throughput went up at least five fold. I was half expecting the Prince of Packet Loss to turn up on my doorstep in the morning with a big spanner but all is still fine :fingers: :laugh:
Quote from: MarkE on Jul 31, 2009, 16:00:36
I have just pinged multiplay.co.uk and im getting 300ms and i have tried router reboots.Some of the days I have had to do no less than 15 to 20 reboots to just get 100ms...
I have just phoned support and spoke to Miriam,she is going to phone me back in 30 minutes.
This won't be of much consolation, but from my interleaved WBC line (the Max is pretty much identical):
ping www.mulitplay.co.uk
Pinging mulitplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 25ms
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Jul 31, 2009, 16:05:33
[EDIT] In reply to Rik... (I seem to have broken the quote button :blush:)
There's some Kelloggs Fruit 'n'Fibre in the cupboard if that counts ;D
Oh no you haven't. :)
QuoteIt was the timing of it that baffles me. My line was getting progressively worse all evening and then at midnight my coach arrived, pings dropped and throughput went up at least five fold. I was half expecting the Prince of Packet Loss to turn up on my doorstep in the morning with a big spanner but all is still fine :fingers: :laugh:
A lot of BT changes seem to happen in the 00:00 - 02:00 span, I don't know why.
That is odd,as at what i consider lower congestion times,ping times were still hugely unacceptable to servers that are based down the road from me in Maidenhead.
Do a tracert and see how you're getting to them.
over a maximum of 30 hops: multiplay.co.uk
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 113 ms 104 ms 122 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 111 ms 103 ms 103 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243
4 72 ms 71 ms 68 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 89 ms 88 ms 109 ms te5-3.gs1.core.enta.net [78.33.35.218]
6 111 ms 93 ms 102 ms te1-1.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.86]
7 101 ms 103 ms 131 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
8 134 ms 139 ms 157 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Quote from: mynnydd on Jul 31, 2009, 15:06:10
Rik could you recommend a general book on the ins and outs of broadband?
http://www.kitz.co.uk/index.htm -Kitz has got a nice amount of information on it.
What I'm getting at the moment.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 62ms, Maximum = 156ms, Average = 103ms
Never bothered turning the router off last night in the end because it started to settle down and I actually had one of my best rounds of battlefield 2142 (71 kills 8 deaths). FPS are very latency dependent, you have to change your style of play if your ping changes. I actually play with a few people that have pings of between 4ms and 10ms, they look at you and your dead. Ping graph at the bottom is last night.
[attachment deleted by admin]
:(
tracert www.multiplay.co.uk
Tracing route to core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 3 ms <1 ms 1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 26 ms 23 ms 25 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 26 ms 27 ms 25 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 26 ms 27 ms 25 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 26 ms 25 ms 27 ms te5-3.gs1.core.enta.net [78.33.35.218]
6 27 ms 29 ms 29 ms te1-1.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.86]
7 27 ms 25 ms 27 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
8 27 ms 25 ms 25 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
indeed the style of play ends up turtle/defensive however in some fast paced games 170 to 300ms just wont get you nowhere regardless of how much experience you have when the opponents are
all on a solid 30ms
Quote from: juiceuk on Jul 31, 2009, 16:13:29
What I'm getting at the moment.
I can only suggest you follow the procedure here. (http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=15454.msg362034#msg362034)
Quote from: Rik on Jul 31, 2009, 16:08:51
Oh no you haven't. :)
Indeed, a browser plugin I installed this morning proved to be the weakest link. Sorted :thumb:
Quote from: Rik on Jul 31, 2009, 15:59:23
Don't forget the user in this particular instance, Pup. :evil: :out:
:thwack: I olny fix things for a living, it was in my time off :evil:
;D
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Jul 31, 2009, 16:30:33
Indeed, a browser plugin I installed this morning proved to be the weakest link. Sorted :thumb:
Phew. ;)
I had interleaving turned off a few weeks ago and was pleased with my new 30 ping. However, for the last week it's been back to where it was with interleaving turned on - 60+, but everything is reporting Fastpath/No interleaving as far as I can see. Obviously the system is compromised in some way as so many others are experiencing similar problems, my sync rate has been very low as well - around 2,000 when it was always 3,500, and I thought no interleaving INCREASED sync rate.
Interleaving is only usually visible if you can sync at 8128, in which case it reduces maximum sync to 7160(?). Otherwise, you don't see it in the sync, so if that's dropped, it's usually local noise, either inside the house or on the line to the exchange.
tried a router reboot,alas things are still the same
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 182 ms 78 ms 94 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 84 ms 81 ms 93 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 104 ms 107 ms 113 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 102 ms 93 ms 85 ms te5-3.gs1.core.enta.net [78.33.35.218]
6 108 ms 99 ms 101 ms te1-1.interxion.core.enta.net [87.127.236.86]
7 20 ms 25 ms 22 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
8 22 ms 24 ms 26 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
End-to-end times are OK though.
Quote from: Rik on Jul 31, 2009, 17:04:53
End-to-end times are OK though.
Which would suggest what Rik
That router along the path may be busy and giving low priority to ping traffic.
Quote from: Rik on Jul 31, 2009, 17:09:42
That router along the path may be busy and giving low priority to ping traffic.
ah ok well thanks for that Rik.
Well no phone call back from support as was promised,guess this is the right way to treat customers who have requested a mac code and will be leaving??So well done idnet,if ever a customer would have come back,that is unlikely now.
cannot help but feel customer service and support has taken massive nose dive lately,which is just the reason pages back when I said it was pointless getting in touch with them and someone suggested to "give it a try what do you have to lose" I some how knew this would be the end product.
Given the amount of gamers I recommended idnet to and who have subsequently migrated when we had the last ping debacle,also with the apparent poor customer relations/support of late ,which for me was something I always felt Idnet prided themselves on,I feel rather saddened over all this.
It as if in some ways one of the last bastions of integrity (Idnet) is allowing itself to be eroded,how long now before it becomes just another average isp?
I cannot help but feel in the same boat and a lot of sympathy for the posts made by Dopamine regarding these issues.
Do you know who you spoke to in support. They are short-handed today due to illness.
You'll be getting a call back shortly, Mark...
Hi Mark
Miriam is still trying to get off the phone to contact you. Sorry for the delay, we're short-staffed today. We're still working at trying to get the traffic balance optimised but this has been exacerbated today but the iPlayer Ashes traffic.
Regards
Simon
yes I just got off the phone with her.
She has told me she that you have optimized the network traffic some how?
I cannot thank you enough for doing so the difference is just utterly...non existent..
multiplay
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=124
It may be that it's your exchange, Mark. Let us know if it improves when you migrate.
Truly abysmal, exactly how long does the high ping thread have to get?.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 139ms, Maximum = 185ms, Average = 163ms
What can I say, Mo? There's nothing we can do on this issue, except tell you what diagnostics are needed by support. :(
I know Rik, I just like to vent, I have been in contact with support who have acknowledged it is a balancing issue. Unfortunately I am not technically minded enough to know what that means.
Surely the balancing is an automated process, why do I keep reading the Centrals have to be manually rebalanced?.
If the people that are suffering are having to rely on some poor sod assigning people to a central to rebalance the network its no wonder they have all gone sick ;D.
It ought to be an automated process, Mo, and was till BT dropped a central a couple or so weeks ago. Everyone immediately re-connected to the other central and that became swamped. Given that most of us leave our routers on 24/7, that's left IDNet having to close off the congested central to new logins, then progressively kick people off the network so that they reconnect to the unoccupied central. The only problem with that is judging which people to move to get the balance just right, and it's that which has taken the time. They've thought they'd got there a few times, only to find that one or more of the people moved has maxed out their connection and thrown an inbalance again. Throw in the delay in BT's implementation of WBC, so that less people have moved to the hostlink than was expected by this time, and it's become a tightrope walk to get things just right again. :(
It looks like we're getting back to normal levels now with 40% of network capacity currently not being used.
Simon
on that news i rebooted the router (belkin N1 wireless router)
did a ping test
Ping has started ...
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=37.665 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=33.129 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=34.045 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=35.184 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=34.164 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=34.335 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=35.469 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=34.660 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=34.325 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=36.117 ms
--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 33.129/34.909/37.665/1.210 ms
its looking better and my sync is now 3487 instead of around 2800
ment to include this in the last post
ping test at 2pm today
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=42.818 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=47.606 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=41.664 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=41.890 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=43.490 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=130.244 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=42.528 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=43.042 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=47.884 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=41.962 ms
--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 41.664/52.313/130.244/26.065 ms
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Jul 31, 2009, 17:38:21
Hi Mark
Miriam is still trying to get off the phone to contact you. Sorry for the delay, we're short-staffed today. We're still working at trying to get the traffic balance optimised but this has been exacerbated today but the iPlayer Ashes traffic.
Regards
Simon
Network rail and 'wet leaves on the line' springs to mind.
For a tennis quote 'YOU CAN NOT BE SERIOUS' :evil:
Pings are back to normal for me now after a few weeks of erratic behaviour. I hope it stays like this and others see some improvement soon. :fingers:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Wags>ping multiplay.co.uk
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 15ms, Average = 14ms
Quote from: Azy on Jul 31, 2009, 20:19:57
its looking better and my sync is now 3487 instead of around 2800
Much as I'm sure IDNet wouldn't mind getting the thanks for that ;), sync speed is a purely local function, between you and the exchange.
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=124
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
My pings are also higher than normal today. Putting that down to weird things happening to my line/package at the mo.
Mine, boringly, are still the same as ever. Are you seeing any packet loss, Paul?
Quote from: Rik on Aug 01, 2009, 16:29:14
Mine, boringly, are still the same as ever. Are you seeing any packet loss, Paul?
nope, just random pings.
one time its around 13ms and next around 80ms.
All I can suggest is following the diagnostic process in the sticky, and let support have the results. These things should have been resolved.
"should have" being the optimal point here,pretty damn well infuriated with this whole debacle
Imagine how we feel, Mark. :(
mmm.. my son tells me his ps3 playing has taken a turn for the worse.
Interestingly now on speedtest net I am now directed to Coventry as the server to test instead of Maidenhead, and since this change happened, my pings have fallen off from a rock steady 31-32 now to 40-70, and today 92ms.
To my mind it seems that something must have changed to now always suggest Coventry instead of Maidenhead?
Try ping www.idnet.net from the command prompt, it should be in the 20-35ms range.
The speedtest.net reports for latency/pings are usually way off, particularly to the London server. As dujas has said you should use the ping command get an accurate representation of your current ping.
ping -n 50 will return 50 pings if you want more data. (The spaces in the command line are important.)
(http://pings.tiff)pings (http://img196.imageshack.us/i/pings.tif/)
Strange, we never had any problems until I was sent to Coventry!
GW, can you follow the sticky (http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=15454.0) support maybe able to help you.
Ok thanks, have done btw tracert doesn't seem to work on mac terminal.
Glyn
I'd reboot your router and see if it cures the problem, if it doesn't, or it re-appears later, then you need to contact support. Rik's guide is for a Windows user, you'll need to use the traceroute command rather than tracert.
I'm not sure if there's an equivalent on the Mac, but I'm sure a Mac user will soon tell us. :) It's important that no-one else is using the network when you run the tests.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 02, 2009, 15:14:43
I'm not sure if there's an equivalent on the Mac, but I'm sure a Mac user will soon tell us. :) It's important that no-one else is using the network when you run the tests.
For Mac users... go into the Hard Disk icon > locate Applications file > locate Utilities file > locate Network Utility (you can run pings... traceroute from there
Thanks, Ron. :thumb:
Yep thanks Ron
My pings are high again, and browsing sluggish to find pages. Throughput once pages have been found is OK. Have the problems still not been fixed, or is it just me?
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=59
We're told they have been, so I can only suggest you ask IDNet, sorry. :(
Support = platitudes and apologies, no resolution. I really can't face another wasted phone call today, so....
Rebooted router, problem solved........ until tomorrow?
Come on IDNet, maybe you should order up a bulk load of MACs in anticipation of demand.
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Not too much success with support, but seems like a very pleasant chap.
I'm on GW5 did I see on thinkbroadband that the high pings were mainly on GW5?
pings still very erratic, some down at 32, but some well over 100 still, and this mornign were up near 300.
I've never had this issuebefore in 3 and a half years with idnet.
It shouldn't matter which realm you're on, GW, these days logins are on a round-robin between the two centrals. AFAIK, the network is now rebalanced and there is no congestion. If you continue to see issues, all I can suggest is you follow the diagnostics in the sticky and let support have the results.
Pings high again here >:(
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 153ms, Maximum = 183ms, Average = 168ms
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
0 coreduo [192.168.0.10]
1 192.168.0.1
2 telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Computing statistics for 150 seconds...
Source to Here This Node/Link
Hop RTT Lost/Sent = Pct Lost/Sent = Pct Address
0 coreduo [192.168.0.10]
0/ 100 = 0% |
1 0ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 192.168.0.1
0/ 100 = 0% |
2 178ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
0/ 100 = 0% |
3 172ms 1/ 100 = 1% 1/ 100 = 1% telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
0/ 100 = 0% |
4 163ms 1/ 100 = 1% 1/ 100 = 1% redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
0/ 100 = 0% |
5 157ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
0/ 100 = 0% |
6 154ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
These high pings this and last week at random is getting a bit silly, not willing to reboot router either otherwise i get sync'd at a higher data rate which will make it drop near midnight again.
Quote from: Gary on Aug 03, 2009, 16:49:08
Pings high again here >:(
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 153ms, Maximum = 183ms, Average = 168ms
They are exactly like the pings I'm getting at the moment. I had a spare router, which I just connected, with no other attached devices, and the pings were all between 120 and 170. That rules out anything to do with my router or network I think. I've just emailed support again.
Quotenot willing to reboot router either otherwise i get sync'd at a higher data rate which will make it drop near midnight again.
You don't need to reboot, in your router's web configuration menus there should be the option to manually disconnect/connect your ISP connection i.e. PPPoA, this should achieve the same result.
Back to normal high pings again:
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Disconnected then immediately reconnected ISP connection, and returned to proper pings:
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Clearly nothing has been remedied at all.
I need to make a decision as to whether to move ISP or not, so can someone speculate as to whether this gradual increase in pings, and consequent browsing sluggishness, is indicative of ISP congestion, or something else.
All we know is what we are told, which is that the network is now rebalanced and there is no congestion. We can only suggest that you follow the diagnostics in the sticky (http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=15454.0) and send them to support, or if you feel that another ISP would be better, request your MAC.
Quote from: Dopamine on Aug 03, 2009, 21:55:34
Back to normal high pings again:
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Disconnected then immediately reconnected ISP connection, and returned to proper pings:
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Clearly nothing has been remedied at all.
I need to make a decision as to whether to move ISP or not, so can someone speculate as to whether this gradual increase in pings, and consequent browsing sluggishness, is indicative of ISP congestion, or something else.
Personally i would move.
As these problems which were the same the last time i left idnet and they said the same to me then about it being my exchange,when as soon as i moved all was fine.I suggest you do as I am and try another isp with 1 month contract only.
My ping time is utter pish also as usual.
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=124
I some how will not be recommending Idnet to anyone :P
Just for the record my pings are back to the normal levels.
I hope everyone else gets sorted soon.
QuoteI need to make a decision as to whether to move ISP or not, so can someone speculate as to whether this gradual increase in pings, and consequent browsing sluggishness, is indicative of ISP congestion, or something else.
Have support given any reasons for why they think the fault still persists for you? Are download speeds also affected? Switching ISPs would seem the obvious next step to finding a permanent fix (it would at least rule out exchange congestion at least).
I'm not sure what has happened overnight but my pings are very stable and back to normal this morning
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=14.201 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=13.169 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=14.492 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=12.514 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=12.826 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=11.830 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=13.251 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=14.682 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=12.797 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=11.992 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=12.821 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=11 ttl=59 time=13.919 ms
Let's hope whatever the problem was is resolved, and others get it sorted as well.
:fingers:
Quote from: dujas on Aug 04, 2009, 00:33:22
Have support given any reasons for why they think the fault still persists for you? Are download speeds also affected? Switching ISPs would seem the obvious next step to finding a permanent fix (it would at least rule out exchange congestion at least).
I called support this afternoon, who would investigate and call me back. The call back didn't happen though (no surprise there) so I've no idea if they know the reason.
Download speeds are acceptable, high pings can be rectified by disconnecting from IDNet and reconnecting, and then usually over time they get progressively worse, although since my last reconnect at 3pm ish they've stayed at 13ms average, which is excellent. I think the fact that I don't disconnect from the exchange rules out exchange congestion.
My problem when pings are high is that browsing seems a bit sluggish to find pages. If that could be solved, I'd be content.
Quote from: mynnydd on Aug 03, 2009, 22:46:32
Just for the record my pings are back to the normal levels.
I hope everyone else gets sorted soon.
So are mine and have been for several weeks now. :fingers:
Colin
Quote from: Dopamine on Aug 04, 2009, 19:43:40
I called support this afternoon, who would investigate and call me back. The call back didn't happen though (no surprise there) so I've no idea if they know the reason.
Did they say they'd definitely call back this afternoon? Maybe they are still investigating?
My pings fluctuate a bit, sometimes steady around 35-45 sometimes a bit higher but they have gone wild this evening may run the test in safe mode tomorrow and contact support
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Simon on Aug 04, 2009, 21:26:35
Did they say they'd definitely call back this afternoon? Maybe they are still investigating?
A female from support mentioned something about checking network congestion, then said that she'd have to call me back as she couldn't access some system or other. It was my assumption that it would be today, as the call was very brief and no checks were carried out whilst I was on the phone - or at least none that I was aware of.
When I first joined IDNet, support calls were dealt with very well. Now, my impression is that the staff remain willing and knowledgeable, but are swamped. But who knows what the real situation is any longer? ISPs are messed about by BT, some ISPs are also under-resourced and/or over-sold, BT blames ISPs unfairly, ISPs blame BT unfairly, the wind is blowing from the east and it's raining in Lothian.... it could be any or all of these things, and the consumer is the one that suffers.
All I want is a decent connection without needing to become a self taught internet engineer, yet I remain unconvinced that there are many, or any, ISPs that are better than IDNet, so see little point in moving; as I've said before, I think the whole industry needs to raise its standards. Can you imagine the public outcry if our electricity or water services were as flaky as our internet connections, or our TV signals kept breaking up or misbehaving?
The good news is that since my last post my pings have remained low and I've had no browsing problems, so that will do for me.
Just got my migration date to Aquiss for the 12th, I'll let you know how it goes.
Please do. :)
I am now with aquiss,interleaving is not off yet but pings are superb compared to previous
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=123
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=123
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=123
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=123
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
How about throughput Mark?
Quote from: Rik on Aug 05, 2009, 16:38:45
How about throughput Mark?
well only ran a speedtest.io Rik
Results from http://www.speed.io
(Copied on 2009-08-05 16:45:13)
Download: 6423 Kbit/s
Upload : 757 kbit/s
Connects : 2723 conn/min
Ping: 23 ms
Is that better or worse?
Quote from: Rik on Aug 05, 2009, 16:48:12
Is that better or worse?
actually Rik let me test on the other speed site where my original idnet results are doh :blush:
Ok on two occasions previous on the 7/6/2009 and 7/4/2009 tests run with idnet were 6.34mb/s
So its a little bit higher with Aquiss for now,but not much in it,but the main point here being the ping times are now nice even with interleaving on
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/533127604.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
I'm glad it's worked for you, Mark, I'd welcome a long term appraisal from you.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 05, 2009, 16:59:57
I'm glad it's worked for you, Mark, I'd welcome a long term appraisal from you.
Rik I will keep updating with info of how things go with Aquiss,as we both know an isp is not something that can really be judged over the first day of its relationship with the customer :D
Not to mention that things change in the longer term. ;)
Still having occasional ping and browsing problems here and have just received an emailed update from support:
At times there may be a brief period where one of the VPs on the network gets busy. We are still working on optimising the traffic to eliminate such issues. Please bear with us at this time.
Very refreshing. A straightforward explanation without excuses or blame, or the "change your router/PC/phone socket/underpants" that we all dread. So long as the "bear with us" period doesn't extend to weeks or months, I'll be happy to.
No gaming again! I need reminding why I pay so much for this. I know it can't be perfect all the time but this has been on off for a long time now.
C:\Users\Administrator>ping www.idnet.net -n 20
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 97ms, Maximum = 175ms, Average = 142ms
Sorry to be repetetive, but all we cab advise is to follow the advice in the sticky and send the results to IDNet. Ultimately, a migration might be your only answer.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 05, 2009, 17:04:31
Not to mention that things change in the longer term. ;)
Too true Rik. I've noticed on TB that Zen seem to be falling off their pedestal judging by the recent numbers of throwing toys out of pram type posts.
Not always the most reliable indicator, but perhaps a straw in the wind.
I would no longer short-list Zen, Tac, as I've heard they plan to implement 'compulsory' WBC when they launch the product. Given that we understand there's no way back once you're connected to an MSAN, that's not good news.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 07, 2009, 09:07:06
I would no longer short-list Zen, Tac, as I've heard they plan to implement 'compulsory' WBC when they launch the product. Given that we understand there's no way back once you're connected to an MSAN, that's not good news.
Demon are doing the same 'compulsory' WBC trick and, I suspect are moving a lot of their stuff to C&W's network to add a further level of complication.
Then when it all goes wrong you have to deal with Bangalore, who are usually kept in the dark by Finchley Road about anything that's going on. Those who are moaning about iDNet, or for that matter, Zen, don't know they're born. :shake:
I take your point. Despite all that's gone wrong, at least we are not having to deal with script jockeys.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 07, 2009, 09:19:19
I take your point. Despite all that's gone wrong, at least we are not having to deal with script jockeys.
Trouble is Rik, if you're stuck with the BT resellers and rule out the 'pile it high sell it cheap' brigade, you're not exactly overwhelmed with good quality ISPs to choose from.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 07, 2009, 09:19:19
I take your point. Despite all that's gone wrong, at least we are not having to deal with script jockeys.
Weren't they Hackers? :eek4:
Quote from: Tacitus on Aug 07, 2009, 09:41:13
Trouble is Rik, if you're stuck with the BT resellers and rule out the 'pile it high sell it cheap' brigade, you're not exactly overwhelmed with good quality ISPs to choose from.
You're not, Tac, and my concern is that both Zen and IDNet's reputations seems to have taken a bit of a knock lately. That reduces my list to a couple, I think.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 07, 2009, 09:45:34
You're not, Tac, and my concern is that both Zen and IDNet's reputations seems to have taken a bit of a knock lately. That reduces my list to a couple, I think.
I would look at Aquiss, newnet or AAISP the later being way to expensive though, not much choice when you are a BT only exchange, and I'm not sure about Entanet resellers :sigh: looks like I will be here a while
Quote from: Rik on Aug 07, 2009, 09:45:34
You're not, Tac, and my concern is that both Zen and IDNet's reputations seems to have taken a bit of a knock lately. That reduces my list to a couple, I think.
Without wanting to derail this thread, I'll just say that I think Zen are being forced by the exigencies of business (and possibly a large mortgage on their palatial HQ) to shed their cuddly image and become more hard nosed and businesslike. iDNet just seem to be overwhelmed by current events.
In addition, to my mind iDNet is in its 'teenage' years, which are the real testing time for any company - can the business stand on its own feet with the founder(s) adopting a guiding role or does he/they become the controlling parent that can't let the kids go. Zen and NewNet which were founded around the same time as iDNet seem to have made it through so far, so I hope iDNet's merry band manage as well.
Looks like AAISP and NewNet - not sure about Aquiss - are the only alternatives for BT resellers. Neither are cheap but each seems to have its reputation intact. So far....
For me, Zen have been overrated in recent times, their hay-day was the fixed speed ADSL period when they offered unlimited downloads and their own newsgroup server, it seemed good value for money from a quality provider. Presently they are a business ISP with a reliable reputation, that really doesn't offer anything above the norm for the home user. I suppose you could say its a sign of how far the market has fallen, that an experienced and UK based technical support is a major selling point.
I'm surprised more niche ISPs haven't copied AAISP's refund promise to get results from Openreach and/or BT Wholesale, judging by the on-going problems we're seeing with WBC, it would appear to be a notable selling point (would be interesting to see their success record).
Not to mentions their costs...
Quote from: Rik on Aug 07, 2009, 11:18:39
Not to mentions their costs...
See David for details, I'm sure they re a little greyer after that WBC encounter ;)
Getting back on-topic, I would like to say pings/downloads speeds have been faultless, for me at least, since the load balancing was completed.
That's good to hear. :)
QuoteI'm surprised more niche ISPs haven't copied AAISP's refund promise to get results from Openreach and/or BT Wholesale, judging by the on-going problems we're seeing with WBC, it would appear to be a notable selling point (would be interesting to see their success record).
You might be interested in the lengths AAISP go to. They certainly don't keep it a secret:
http://www.aaisp.net.uk/kb-broadband-sfi.html (http://www.aaisp.net.uk/kb-broadband-sfi.html)
Richard
It makes for exhausting reading, doesn't it, Richard. Who'd want to be an ISP? :shake:
Well, it probably depends on who you are.
Who would want to take your money and leave you to the tender mercies of BT?
I'm sure you're asking "Who would want to be an ISP that tries to deliver fair service under these conditions?" :eek4:
I suspect it's reaching a point where AAISP's pricing model will be the only way to be able to afford to provide good customer service.
I do like their website, quite an informative read.
Can only see the situation becoming worse for ISPs, what with BT's financial situation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/07/bt_a_blacker_pension_hole.html). An electrician friend was recalling recently talking to a BT engineer and he said any digression they had in waiving fees had been taken away and they to were charge for everything, no exceptions.
I put support onto this, and Simon told me they have already implemented an XML interface in the manner described by AAISP, and used it to reduce the SFI's BT want so they can charge. :thumb: :thumb:
Have to say my speed and pings are also faultless now :thumb:
Edit: should not have said that, they are up now
Quote from: rireed3 on Aug 07, 2009, 13:50:17
I put support onto this, and Simon told me they have already implemented an XML interface in the manner described by AAISP, and used it to reduce the SFI's BT want so they can charge. :thumb: :thumb:
Why don't they say this is what they are doing, on their website? Considering a premium ISP like iDNet needs every bit of publicity they can get, they don't seem very pro-active when opportunities present themselves.
I have to agree, Tac.
QuoteI would no longer short-list Zen, Tac, as I've heard they plan to implement 'compulsory' WBC when they launch the product.
QuoteHowever you do have the option of opting out of the migration if you wish however the ADSL 1 based products may eventually be withdrawn.
Posted by David Nelson on their forums, he has the rather long job title of: Forum Admin, Performance and Improvement Analyst, Team Leader for Zen Internet Business Solutions. So a customer of theirs could opt out until Zen (or BT?) switches completely over to WBC.
Thanks, Dujas. :thumb:
At least with IDNet, you're given the option to opt in.
If they withdraw adsl 1 products what happens to all those who cant get WBC or who have fixed lines due to line length?
IPStream Connect will be in place, which will allow non-equipped exchanges to connect over the new technology.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 08, 2009, 09:02:00
IPStream Connect will be in place, which will allow non-equipped exchanges to connect over the new technology.
Somehow I just do not trust all this, Rik :(
Gary, I think you will be in the majority to think BT will cock it up.
Quote from: Glenn on Aug 08, 2009, 12:34:27
Gary, I think you will be in the majority to think BT will cock it up.
Given there is no date for WBC at my exchange and even 21CN isn't scheduled until Q4 2010, I can't see it happening here until at least 2012. They should have got it sorted when my turn comes around. :fingers:
Mine too Tac, I have 21CN though
Quote from: Tacitus on Aug 08, 2009, 13:02:18
Given there is no date for WBC at my exchange and even 21CN isn't scheduled until Q4 2010, I can't see it happening here until at least 2012. They should have got it sorted when my turn comes around. :fingers:
By then I hope some decent ISP has come to my exchange so I can go LLU, since its BT only right now I have zero choice really, our exchange does not have 21CN dates let alone WBC
According to BT's own plans (they suffered a one year setback in roll-out), 55% of the UK population should be connected to a WBC 21CN enabled exchange by the end of March 2010. If your exchange doesn't have a WBC date then supposedly it's classed as a low priority and could take until the end of 2012 before being upgraded.
Quote from: dujas on Aug 08, 2009, 13:57:14
According to BT's own plans (they suffered a one year setback in roll-out), 55% of the UK population should be connected to a WBC 21CN enabled exchange by the end of March 2010. If your exchange doesn't have a WBC date then supposedly it's classed as a low priority and could take until the end of 2012 before being upgraded.
By then I may not even have a computer, they really are very boring things ;D
Said I would let you know how it went, well BT cocked it up lol, I was without phone or net for 2 days as they just unplugged me from exchange, that said I'm on with Aquiss now & all seems fine, ping graph from monday was with idnet, the last one I could do after bts cock up, tho other is friday my 1st night on with Aquiss properly.
The bottom line - All is well with my ping again, oddly though they put me straight onto 24mb, the router (linksys ag241) seems fine with it though, it is a 24 mb rated adsl 2 router, but not adsl2+, though what difference that makes I'm not sure. Like many others, underwhelmed is the word that best describes 24mb BB, glad I didnt pay for the "upgrade", download speeds no better than 8mb, upload is about twice the speed, pings are no different.
Heres my router stats from the new isp:
DSL Status: Up
DSL Modulation Mode: ADSL2+
DSL Path Mode: INTERLEAVED
Downstream Rate: 20939 Kbps
Upstream Rate: 1076 Kbps
Downstream Margin: 6 db
Upstream Margin: 5 db
Downstream Line Attenuation: 11
Upstream Line Attenuation: 5
Downstream Transmit Power: 0
Upstream Transmit Power: 0
When I 1st got it on it was still on fastpath, but interleaving has come on today for some reason, think there must be another training period like when I 1st got adsl.
[attachment deleted by admin]
There is another training period. I saw interleaving go on in an attempt to correct the errors, then the target margin was lifted to 9db, same as for Max. I've gained 500k some of the time, upstream is slower than SuperMax. Like you, I am not greatly impressed, but at least I haven't had the pain that some have suffered, hopefully to be sorted by Monday evening according to BT.
Is it just me or are pings excessively high this afternoon? Even after resetting the connection.
Mine are absolutely normal (WBC).
Fine here as well. (Max)
25ms average here on max
Quote from: dujas on Aug 17, 2009, 16:31:26
Is it just me or are pings excessively high this afternoon? Even after resetting the connection.
One VP on one central was peaking briefly, 15 minutes ago. If you're still having problems let IDNet know.
It's back to normal now, was most likely what you said.
Keep an eye on it, if it becomes an issue again, do some extended ping tests, eg use the -n 20 switch, and let support have the results, they can tweak for you.
Mine have been very good since they worked the magic.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 23ms
I'm a happy gamer now.
That's what we like, the word "happy". :thumb:
We do, we do...
My pings have suddenly gone through the roof again, everything is loading so slowly :mad:
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=189ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 98ms, Maximum = 189ms, Average = 143ms
Re-boot, Gary, if that doesn't cure it, check with support. I know they had one VP peak around this time yesterday.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 18, 2009, 13:19:13
Re-boot, Gary, if that doesn't cure it, check with support. I know they had one VP peak around this time yesterday.
will do Rik :sigh: I think i'll go in the garden first, at least that does not need rebooting to look nice
:)
Good thinking.
I just found the same, connection reset fixed it.
*edit* spoke too soon...
Tell support...
The solution is coming next month it would seem.
Quote from: dujas on Aug 18, 2009, 19:56:27
The solution is coming next month it would seem.
Do you have further information?
QuoteWe are constantly monitoring traffic levels to try to ensure that no one connection reaches the point of congestion. When BT allow us to move all our 20CN traffic onto our 21CN Gigabit host link in the next month or so then the problem of balancing the traffic should then be a thing of the past. Please bear with us while this work is ongoing.
The little words "or so" make me shudder a bit, especially when you consider that I rebooted and got this:
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/543034521.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
And that's with my line syncing at 15332. Pings are down [as in worse by...] around 18 or 19 ms for me this evening
I'm afraid you're being affected by a different problem (http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=15293.0), which the above information is unlikely to change.
This is for IDNet's 20CN users i.e. those on ADSL max packages, who I'm guessing are soon (if it goes to plan) due to be routed via BT Wholesale's 21CN network? Therefore as the old BT Centrals are being retired, it doesn't make financial sense for IDNet to buy more capacity. Resulting in temporary situations where congestion is noticeable.
Ah, OK. :)
Quote from: dujas on Aug 18, 2009, 21:20:54
I'm afraid you're being affected by a different problem (http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=15293.0), which the above information is unlikely to change.
This is for IDNet's 20CN users i.e. those on ADSL max packages, who I'm guessing are soon (if it goes to plan) due to be routed via BT Wholesale's 21CN network? Therefore as the old BT Centrals are being retired, it doesn't make financial sense for IDNet to buy more capacity. Resulting in temporary situations where congestion is noticeable.
I think that's quite a good summing up, which even I can understand. :karmic:
Must be good :evil:
(http://pc-pals.com/pics/smileys/shuddup.gif)
Just as a footnote, this move to the 21CN network requires a product called IPStream Connect from BT. Early trial results have shown seamless transitions for those on non-WBC exchanges, so we're hopeful that it will not produce any of the pain that some WBC users have had. Like IDNet's hostlink, BT are a year late delivering. :sigh:
I just hope a month is more like it, I too fear the use of the word so I know IDNet have had BT issues but some of this capacity trouble must be a bad call on their part in hedging bets on future capacity needs with WBC migration. Putting all your eggs into one basket which then may get dropped is a bad move, even if the financial methodology they have used is sound, with expensive centrals being no longer needed when ipstream connect goes live. If other niche ISP's can cover capacity better than Idnet, then apart from blaming BT who have obviously not helped the situation, maybe they should also be looking at the decisions that got them here in the first place.
Larger ISPs can more easily afford to fund centrals which will quickly become redundant, Gary. Factor in the 3 month lead time for a central and the 3 year contract requirement, and you can see why the situation has arisen. IDNet's planning has been rendered useless by BT's inability to deliver products on time.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 19, 2009, 09:13:02
Larger ISPs can more easily afford to fund centrals which will quickly become redundant, Gary. Factor in the 3 month lead time for a central and the 3 year contract requirement, and you can see why the situation has arisen. IDNet's planning has been rendered useless by BT's inability to deliver products on time.
Thats True Rik, and I accept that, but they also gambled a little on an unproven product, maybe not the safest move :-\ at least there is light at the end of the tunnel, I just hope its not a flashing one saying slow down ;)
;D
Had IPStream Connect been delivered on time, along with the hostlink, the problems would not have arisen, Gary. It's a difficult juggling act, because the alternative to the present situation would be higher charges or lower bandwidth allowances.
Quote from: Rik on Aug 19, 2009, 09:18:00
;D
Had IPStream Connect been delivered on time, along with the hostlink, the problems would not have arisen, Gary. It's a difficult juggling act, because the alternative to the present situation would be higher charges or lower bandwidth allowances.
Maybe they should have got Alistair Darling to help :evil:
He's done enough damage already. ;D
Quote from: Rik on Aug 15, 2009, 18:47:10
There is another training period. I saw interleaving go on in an attempt to correct the errors, then the target margin was lifted to 9db, same as for Max. I've gained 500k some of the time, upstream is slower than SuperMax. Like you, I am not greatly impressed, but at least I haven't had the pain that some have suffered, hopefully to be sorted by Monday evening according to BT.
Been having some problems the last 2 days with a lot of disconnects, suspect bt have messed something up again as I had this problem once a while back with idnet too, but it mysteriously stopped after a while, anyhow, been in touch with Aquiss support about it & found something interesting out when I asked about the possible line retraining maybe being the cause of disconnects:
"lines don't retrain anymore, which is something else we have seen mentioned on various sites. Lines are training all the time as part of the DLM systems at the exchange, especially more so with 21CN WBC."
TBH, lines have always 'trained' continuously with DLM, the initial training period is, imo, a smoke screen by BT to keep people off their backs initially.
Exactly, Rik.
We're seeing a high level or traffic today due to the Ashes (the BBC site crashed a few mins ago) which is causing some congestion on our 20CN links. 21CN traffic is not so high.
Simon
Thanks, Simon. Bloody cricket. ;D
Thanks for the heads up, Simon. :)
If the game goes into a 5th day, the UK internet will grind to a halt
::)
Anyone else having high pings tonight? Playing COD4 (Maidenhead based server) they are shooting up from 35 to 150ms and quite erratic.
My pings as far as j could tell on the pc earlier were absolutely fine ( ie quick loading of pages when browsing).
If you can reset your ppp session innyour router settings, it may be worth trying that.
Trying to play battlefield 2142 with pings going from low twenties to over 150ms its no fun.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 187ms, Average = 127ms
Whats up this time?
Have you tried a ppp reset or reboot?
I know it shouldn't be necessary, but until BT sort out the hostlink the network balancing is being watched very carefully.
I'll reset the adsl line and see if that fixes it but it never normally works for me. Fingers crossed.
The best way to do it is to unplug the router get a drink and then ug it back in. That should give BT and their systems sufficient time to forget you.
I will leave it for tonight and see what it's like tomorrow. I hope this is not a re-occurrence of the latency problems a lot of us endured a few weeks ago :fingers:. which would be unfortunate for a premium priced product :eyebrow:
(O2 LLU is now available at my exchange, which is tempting, but I understand they impose interleaving whether you want it or not which is a big negative for me, even if I would save a few quid as an O2 mobile phone user).
I see on the IDNET Network Status page that 'Broadband' is showing as 'Sub-Optimal Service', so something is obviously awry.
QuoteI see on the IDNET Network Status page that 'Broadband' is showing as 'Sub-Optimal Service', so something is obviously awry.
That's probably because of:
QuoteService: Broadband
Posted: 08 September 2009 11:32:43
Updated: 08 September 2009 11:32:58
Status:In Progress
Message: BT have announced a major service outage affecting all London ADSL2+ (WBC) users. They say "exchanges are running hot and customers are experiencing intermittent connectivity and difficulty accessing www. Engineers are working on this as we speak however there is no clear ETA at this time."
The ping issue is ongoing and separate to the above, but it's starting to creep into the evenings.
Quote from: Wags on Sep 08, 2009, 23:26:00
(O2 LLU is now available at my exchange, which is tempting, but I understand they impose interleaving whether you want it or not which is a big negative for me, even if I would save a few quid as an O2 mobile phone user).
Be (same network), on the other hand, do not. ;)
Quote from: Lance on Sep 08, 2009, 23:13:28
That should give BT and their systems sufficient time to forget you.
I wish I could forget about BT so easily ;D
;D
When I emailed Ian Livingston over the MK node failure last week, his only interest was that I seemed to know a lot of the terminology of WBC and, therefore, might be closely connected to BT in some way. I wonder what he'd say if I tried again over the London outage (can you imagine how many people must be affected?
I've also noticed that over the last few days pings are up and down.
I've not had my usual 15ms ping in the evening for awhile now :(
Have you checked with support, Paul?
Quote from: Rik on Sep 09, 2009, 12:37:08
Have you checked with support, Paul?
Not had time to be honest. I've not really got time to keep doing and logging tracerts :(
I rebooted the router today (turned off power for 30 mins and restarted) today at around midday to sort out the higher than normal pings that I have been experiencing. Pings are back to 'normal' at around 15ms :thumb:, which is good, but whereas the connection has been solid all week at a sync of 6432 with downstream margin of 6db, the sync rate is now lower and the downstream margin looks dangerously low:
DSL Status: Up
DSL Modulation Mode: GDMT
DSL Path Mode: FAST
Downstream Rate: 5440 Kbps
Upstream Rate: 448 Kbps
Downstream Margin: 3 db
Upstream Margin: 24 db
Downstream Line Attenuation: 36
Upstream Line Attenuation: 20
Any thoughts as to what to do to get it back to how it was before the reboot? Should I just wait?
It was rebooted today at lunchtime.
It's down to local line conditions. If you're sure that there's nothing in your internal wiring to blame, or nothing else connected to the line, then there's little or nothing you can do. If you have access to a different router, it might be worth trying, but the low margin is likely to mean a re-sync sometime tonight. :(
Thanks Rik.
My internal wiring is all good now (you may recall I replaced the NTE5 plate with the ADSl nation faceplate, with the router plugged in this with CAT5e to my PCs).
I am always slightly apprehensive with a router reboot, especially when the sync and snr margin have been so solid for a week! :dunno:
Me too. I have kittens when I come back off holiday and power up the system. ;)
You'll have litters by the end of the year then! :D
For sale notice to follow shortly. ;D
The low ping didn't last long! It was fluctuating from 35 to 176 in COD4 (Maidenhead based server) tonight and eventually settling down to 35-60 by about 11.15pm.
I am loathe to keep rebooting the router, especially as my sync rate then drops! I will keep my eye on this and drop support an email with some tracerts etc if this does not improve soon :eyebrow:
Yep, you must get in touch with support if it continues like this. :)
Not looking good tonight. Pings were 14-16ms earlier but now..... :mad:
Pinging idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 119ms, Maximum = 143ms, Average = 132ms
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 90 ms 93 ms 114 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 153 ms 150 ms 128 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 111 ms 122 ms 123 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 164 ms 173 ms 142 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 104 ms 100 ms 97 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Oh well, I'd better forget COD4 tonight and watch the History Channel....
Pings about 20ms higher here
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\****>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 51ms, Maximum = 65ms, Average = 56ms
I saw the previous posts and thought I would check my latency tonight before having a game and I'm quite pleased I'm looking fine. A tad higher than my best but out of the 20 pings it only varies by 2ms and look very consistent.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 28ms, Average = 26ms
I had three periods of high latency (130+ ping to www.idnet.net) yesterday, it tends to be temporary and a PPPoA reconnect usually returns service to normal if you don't want to wait.
High pings again :(
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 148ms, Maximum = 175ms, Average = 156ms
I hate you Gary.......every time you seem to get bad ping, mine follows (and i think we live in entirely different parts of the country)
C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 130ms, Maximum = 200ms, Average = 166ms
but after exhaustive scientific research, I can only conclude that its all Rik's fault (he is sucking up all the bandwidth with his thousands of forum posts) :hehe:
;D
But I'm on WBC, I don't have any impact on you peasants! :nana: :out: :hide2:
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 59ms, Average = 31ms
Still rather erratic. I usually get around 15ms on a cmd ping test. Last night in game pings eventually settled down at about10.30pm to 35-48 (COD4). I am a peasant on ADSL Max (for Rik's benefit) :whistle:. Dare I try playing tonight? :dunno:
lol, you need to be careful Rik, the peasants may revolt (note to self, change forum name to Che) and you will have to live on turkey twizzlers and pot noodles
No, anything but the DR withdrawal! :eek4:
It's not IDNet as a whole:
ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 22ms, Average = 21ms
but that's interleaved WBC.
If you haven't already, follow the ping diagnostics in the FAQ and let support have the results.
Fine on Max here; -
Pinging idnet.net with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:59
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:59
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:59
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:59
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:59
Ping statistics for idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 5, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 20ms
Quote from: Fox on Sep 15, 2009, 17:04:14
I hate you Gary.......every time you seem to get bad ping, mine follows (and i think we live in entirely different parts of the country)
C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 130ms, Maximum = 200ms, Average = 166ms
but after exhaustive scientific research, I can only conclude that its all Rik's fault (he is sucking up all the bandwidth with his thousands of forum posts) :hehe:
:lol: Im sorry its my luck with electronics, I'm down on the south coast ;D
Quote from: Rik on Sep 15, 2009, 17:18:38
If you haven't already, follow the ping diagnostics in the FAQ and let support have the results.
I have given up doing that now, Rik it sorts itself out eventually ::) I just go and do something else
I had to reconnect again, about 10 minutes ago, due to high latency.
I have just emailed support, as this has been going on for too long now :bawl::
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 47ms, Maximum = 133ms, Average = 78ms
I will let you know what support have to say.
Mine are back down now, about 2ms higher than usual so I'm happy
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 32ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 32ms
C:\Users\>
Yup mine are back to normal now (btw Gary I live in Yorkshire, just seems strange we always seem to get ping problems at the same time)
I think it was the threat of rationing Rik that did it (one look at a Tesco value sausage and he got scared)
:lol:
Quote from: Fox on Sep 16, 2009, 11:26:24
(one look at a Tesco value sausage and he got scared)
You have no idea how bad it was, but I'm off the life-support system now. ;D
I am most impressed - Simon answered my email at 2.32 am!!! That is real dedication to customer service! :thumb:
QuoteUnfortunately, on occasions, we see that the traffic into us from BT
has become un-balanced in that a single pipe has attracted too much
traffic. We are continually working at keeping our BT pipes balanced
but, when you experience such congestion, a reboot of your router
should force your session onto a different pipe until we get the
balancing corrected. Apologies for the inconvenience.
Regards
Simon
I will pop home at lunchtime and give the router a hard reboot and hope this sorts the problem.
He never sleeps. ;)
Quote from: Rik on Sep 16, 2009, 12:01:08
He never sleeps. ;)
So it would seem....and I thought I worked long hours :whistle:
I've had email from Simon at 4am, but then you have to ask why I was awake too. ;D
Just popped home (living near my office has advantages!)
Rebooted the router after leaving it off for 15 mins:
Pinging idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 15ms, Average = 14ms
That's good! :thumb:
High pings for me now >:(
2142 was giving me 130ms ish pings
not playable
QuoteC:\Users\Sam>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 94ms, Maximum = 181ms, Average = 135ms
1 min later
QuoteC:\Users\Sam>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 113ms, Maximum = 151ms, Average = 126ms
QuoteC:\Users\Sam>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 4 ms 3 ms 3 ms home
2 99 ms 90 ms 149 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 123 ms 120 ms 122 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 117 ms 121 ms 130 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 114 ms 120 ms 138 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 124 ms 125 ms 134 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Have you re-booted, Sam?
I have to say I have never know a provider that asks you to reboot routers so often ??? if you leave it be it resolves itself but thats not great for gaming, last night on the PS3 was murder.
When is Max going over to the giglink, Rik?
just turned off for up until now since last post
QuoteC:\Users\Sam>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 129ms, Maximum = 182ms, Average = 148ms
QuoteC:\Users\Sam>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 5 ms 5 ms 7 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 193 ms 188 ms 185 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 170 ms 147 ms 171 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 205 ms 310 ms 271 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 143 ms 149 ms 157 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 173 ms 166 ms 172 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
oh dear...
i cant be having this :'(
hurts to say it but i had less ping problems with talktalk (although i didnt have internet most of the time xD)
Have a word with support, Sam.
gotta email some pings in and TRY to get the bt speedtester to work which will be fun
It seems to have been better, lately, Sam. You've got no background activity going on, have you?
nothing
whats the support email?
support@idnet.net or support@idnet.com.
and ping www.idnet.net -t50 should give me 50 pings?
cheers
-n 50, Sam, don't forget the space.
Usage: ping [-t] [-a] [-n count] [-l size] [-f] [-i TTL] [-v TOS]
[-r count] [-s count] [[-j host-list] | [-k host-list]]
[-w timeout] target_name
Options:
-t Ping the specified host until stopped.
To see statistics and continue - type Control-Break;
To stop - type Control-C.
-a Resolve addresses to hostnames.
-n count Number of echo requests to send.
-l size Send buffer size.
-f Set Don't Fragment flag in packet.
-i TTL Time To Live.
-v TOS Type Of Service.
-r count Record route for count hops.
-s count Timestamp for count hops.
-j host-list Loose source route along host-list.
-k host-list Strict source route along host-list.
-w timeout Timeout in milliseconds to wait for each reply.
ok cool
ill share my results here too to see if it helps
seems the bt speedtester reset my connection and it improves again - for how long
QuoteHello, Just been on the phone about my ping problems and told to provide some tests.
This is after turning router off for 30 mins
No other activity on the network.
I did the bt speedtest but stupidly forgot to copy and paste, but apparently you (the isp) get the results anyway.
C:\Users\Sam>ping www.idnet.net -t
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=169ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=191ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=59
C:\Users\Sam>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 8 ms 4 ms 5 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 45 ms 47 ms 68 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 379 ms 142 ms 39 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 38 ms 44 ms 45 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 51 ms 44 ms 37 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 38 ms 37 ms 43 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Seems very varied
20 seconds later
C:\Users\Sam>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 4 ms 8 ms 4 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 246 ms 36 ms 33 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 41 ms 37 ms 42 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 82 ms 81 ms 79 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 67 ms 70 ms 62 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 40 ms 33 ms 36 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Sam>ping www.idnet.net -t
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=59
Seems the bt speetest reset my connection again
It shouldn't reset it, Sam. :dunno:
well my pings improved after?
reset as in reconnected to my isp? i dunno
pings are back high again
QuoteC:\Users\Sam>ping www.idnet.net -n 50
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=191ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 191ms, Average = 124ms
I think you've made my line go slow now, Sam. :(
dreadfully sorry :(
its infectious!
Mine are in 3 figures as well this pm ,dropping ppp for 2 mins made no difference. A reboot has got them back to normal . I wonder for how long?
Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 16, 2009, 16:53:58
dreadfully sorry :(
its infectious!
;D
And I'm on WBC!
down again =/
QuoteC:\Users\Sam>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 35ms, Maximum = 46ms, Average = 40ms
I bet your speed hasn't dropped to half though, Sam. :)
Well I'm down in the 19ms regime (/cross fingers).
Could this be some BT router somewhere or what?
It's possible, there's a huge amount of work going on around the network right now.
funnily enough rik...
i was getting 6000kbps ish on speedtest.net
now down to 3000kbps ish :rant2:
I wonder if BT's dropped something again. There's definitely nothing to cause WBC congestion at IDNet.
Still looking good for now on ADSL Max :thumb:
Pinging idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 15ms, Average = 14ms
I hope it stays like this :fingers: Also, on reboot my sync has gone back up to 6300 and downstream margin dropped to 8db (from 11/12) :thumb:
So, probably a target of 9 from 12. Oddly, my target also reduced today, from 9 to 6, but my throughput is half the profile. :(
Quote from: Rik on Sep 16, 2009, 19:34:18
my target also reduced today, from 9 to 6, but my throughput is half the profile. :(
Strange. Mine has now dropped to 4db! :eek4:
Quote from: Wags on Sep 16, 2009, 20:23:23
Strange. Mine has now dropped to 4db! :eek4:
Grrrrrrr :mad: Pings have shot up to 90-160 again. This is really getting beyond a joke :rant2:
Quote from: Rik on Sep 16, 2009, 19:34:18
So, probably a target of 9 from 12. Oddly, my target also reduced today, from 9 to 6, but my throughput is half the profile. :(
High error count, perhaps?
I have noticed from the past couple of days that for me the pings are erratic and shoot up from 15ms to over 180ms roughly between 2100 and 2230 hrs and then drop to an acceptable level after that.
I guess these are the busiest times of the evening/night?
I hope IDNET sort this out with re-balancing the centrals soon, because the main reason I orginally chose this ISP (and accepted the premium price compared to others) was because of:
QuoteOur network has the capacity and very low-latency to ensure your Internet traffic, whether you have Broadband, Leased-line or Ethernet connectivity, is delivered with the highest performance that is technically possible.
and
QuoteWe guarantee no throttling, no traffic shaping, no port blocking, and no contention on our network. No contention on our network is achieved by not oversubscribing our broadband services and ensuring that bandwidth investment exceeds customer demand. This means that we can guarantee the maximum throughput that your line can support at all times.
I don't really want to have to reboot the router everyday to achieve the above, especially if this is in the evening, because invariably I will need to reboot in the morning again to get the sync rate back up - so twice a day! :no:
Quote from: Sebby on Sep 16, 2009, 23:17:48
High error count, perhaps?
Possible, Seb, there's about 100/hour uncorrected - but why did BT change the target NM? :dunno:
No idea, but it certainly doesn't make much (or any) sense.
None at all. :shake:
Pings through the roof again for me, and thats after rebooting :(
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 170ms, Maximum = 195ms, Average = 177ms
Same for me Gary. I have just rebooted, but still hitting 80-90ms to idnet.net.
This has gone on for too long :( I shouldn't have to reboot every day!
Sometimes you have to reconnect several times before you're routed through the less congested "pipe".
Or sometimes leave the router off for a couple of minutes for the network to truely forget who you are.
Quote from: Lance on Sep 19, 2009, 17:40:02
Or sometimes leave the router off for a couple of minutes for the network to truely forget who you are.
I tend to leave it off for 10 mins or more Lance.
This 'hot pipe' issue should go away once and for all in a month or so.
Quote from: dujas on Sep 19, 2009, 17:25:24
Sometimes you have to reconnect several times before you're routed through the less congested "pipe".
Just like the good old Entanet days. ;D
[RANT]
I'm getting really hacked off that I'm paying £25 a month for internet that is giving me fluctuating pings in the evenings. My ping flies between a good enough 50-60 to as high as 200ms meaning I can't possibly play my FPS games online. I wouldn't be so bothered if I wasn't paying for what I expect to be a premium service at a premium price but as I am it's getting right up my back.
I blame IDnet entirely as I was not having this problem a while back nor do my neighbours have the same problem with their internet (granted they have many other issues but they don't pay top-whack for their service).
I accept there is absolutely no point to this post at all because I'm confident nothing can/will be done. I just had to rant and rave somewhere about another frustrating evening. Frankly I can't wait to get back to my 02 ADSL2 back in my Birmingham house for £9.77 a month providing a far better service and support that I have found to be impeccable.
[/RANT]
If you're unhappy, ask for your MAC. I am confident this will be resolved in a few weeks, when BT finally deliver on their promises, but it's your call.
I'm going for a stint in Birmingham on Friday, I'll probably be back up for Christmas and hope this whatever-it-is has gone away. IDnet has my email address, I would consider it courteous of them to send me and everyone else an email explaining their way out of the blame and giving it BT and putting minds at rest that it is only temporary. In my opinion it's basic customer relations when you are attempting to justify £30%more per month but hey that's just my two cents.
The reasons why have been discussed several times in this thread and others. I can understand Idnet's reason for keeping quiet, it's not in their interests to potentially lose customers by alerting them to an issue they may never experience.
Technically you're not paying "top-whack", you're paying what is the going rate for an ISP that wishes to make a profit and is reliant on BT Wholesale. They can't use other revenue streams to subsidize Broadband to below cost like O2/Be.
I seem to be all too regular a poster in this thread ::), but pings are back-up to 80-90ms after 2 days of nice low ones (13-14ms). The on-off switch on my router is going to wear out if I have to continually reboot.... :comp:
Anyone else seeing latency issues?
No, but I'm on WBC. Mine have gone up by 4ms this week, but that's down to BT's DLM.
Quote from: dujas on Sep 21, 2009, 00:08:49
The reasons why have been discussed several times in this thread and others. I can understand Idnet's reason for keeping quiet, it's not in their interests to potentially lose customers by alerting them to an issue they may never experience.
Technically you're not paying "top-whack", you're paying what is the going rate for an ISP that wishes to make a profit and is reliant on BT Wholesale. They can't use other revenue streams to subsidize Broadband to below cost like O2/Be.
Good post! :thumb:
My pings are fine currently (on Max, GW5) can't comment for those in their lofty towers on WBC :bow:
:nana: ;D
Actually, my Max connection is currently giving faster pings than the WBC one. :)
Hi all well things were going great managed to get to 5.0 after 5pm :thumb: but just try'd my online game MOHAA and noticed I was getting over 150 in pings norm is about 50-60
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\JRB>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 130ms, Maximum = 178ms, Average = 149ms
C:\Documents and Settings\JRB>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 139ms, Maximum = 174ms, Average = 152ms
C:\Documents and Settings\JRB>
Just been reading this section on ping issues - loos like I am on GW6 - I am based in Hope LL12
Should I start to :bawl: :bawl: :bawl: well I wont I am getting average speed tests of 5.1 after 5pm which OMG I have never had but high ping gives me issues on my game will try again later....still reading all pages in this thread can anyone give me any recent updates cheers all :thumb:
Dont want to reboot router as only just come on so waiting for the sync to settle down
Jon
Just done another test and lookin :flamethrower:
:thumb:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\JRB>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 31ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 31ms
C:\Documents and Settings\JRB>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 49ms, Average = 36ms
C:\Documents and Settings\JRB>
Quote from: jrboden on Oct 13, 2009, 17:40:56
Should I start to :bawl: :bawl: :bawl: well I wont I am getting average speed tests of 5.1 after 5pm which OMG I have never had but high ping gives me issues on my game will try again later....still reading all pages in this thread can anyone give me any recent updates cheers all :thumb:
Dont want to reboot router as only just come on so waiting for the sync to settle down
Jon
If it's only pings that are the problem, there is no need to reboot your router. Just disconnect from IDNet and reconnect. That will probably solve the ping issue for a few hours.
For what it's worth, I experienced yet another period of high pings and consequent sluggishness in page opening this afternoon, which was solved by a disconnect/reconnect. It was, though, the straw that broke the camel's back. I've now requested my MAC and will be leaving IDNet as fast as possible, something I should have done ages ago. The repeated promises of a fix have proved to be empty promises.
Hi thanks Dopamine.....I seem to be up and down done a few tests the last couple of hours and its a bit up in the air was stable for about an hour and then returned bad onl to go good again with out any anctions from my end :dunno:
Be carful if you leave just come from SKY connect hell so if you are on non LLU its a dark world out there - for me this is an issue but still so much better from where I was :fingers:
Microsoft released a bunch of OS security fixes at 6PM today, so it's probably causing a spike in bandwidth usage.
That's quite possible, Dujas. I have yet to be hit. This is supposed to be the biggest set of fixes ever, isn't it?
In terms of fixed vulnerabilities, I think so.
Gulp! :wimp:
The new link has been delayed by BT by over 13 months, in increments, but finally Idnet have been able to officially place an order and the link should be live within a month.
Quote from: Dopamine on Oct 13, 2009, 19:03:15
For what it's worth, I experienced yet another period of high pings and consequent sluggishness in page opening this afternoon, which was solved by a disconnect/reconnect. It was, though, the straw that broke the camel's back. I've now requested my MAC and will be leaving IDNet as fast as possible, something I should have done ages ago. The repeated promises of a fix have proved to be empty promises.
I too have now been hit, the first time for over 6 weeks. I thought it was too good to be true having lasted this long when others have been having similar problems for many weeks. Tonight I got these readings after noticing a very sluggish internet.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/592223418.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
After the recommended router reboot, everything back to normal.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/592226748.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
I too am getting a bit fed up with this ongoing situation, with no end in sight and I will now start to look around once again for another ISP. Probably back to ZEN or possibly Newnet as they are getting good reviews on DSLZONE and I have set up a client with them a little while ago without any problems whatsoever. The trouble is I have also transferred my phone to IDNET as well, but at least I have my domain and email with 1&1, so one less major problem.
Colin
Idnet have placed the order with BT Wholesale to migrate their 20CN customers to IPSC, I believe they are waiting on confirmation of when this will happen (they expect it to be within a month).
Quote from: wecpcs on Oct 14, 2009, 20:27:54
I too have now been hit, the first time for over 6 weeks. I thought it was too good to be true having lasted this long when others have been having similar problems for many weeks. Tonight I got these readings after noticing a very sluggish internet.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/592223418.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
After the recommended router reboot, everything back to normal.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/592226748.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
I too am getting a bit fed up with this ongoing situation, with no end in sight and I will now start to look around once again for another ISP. Probably back to ZEN or possibly Newnet as they are getting good reviews on DSLZONE and I have set up a client with them a little while ago without any problems whatsoever. The trouble is I have also transferred my phone to IDNET as well, but at least I have my domain and email with 1&1, so one less major problem.
Colin
Its happened again today and this time it has taken 2 router reboots to get my download speed close to normal for me, but my ping is still at least double to normal. I do not want to do too many reboots just in case and I will look at it again in a few hours. I am getting very near to leaving and feel that I cannot wait much longer for this so-called new service promised.
Before
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/594030452.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
After
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/594033962.png) (http://www.speedtest.net)
Colin
Quote from: wecpcs on Oct 16, 2009, 16:41:11
Its happened again today and this time it has taken 2 router reboots to get my download speed close to normal for me, but my ping is still at least double to normal. I do not want to do too many reboots just in case and I will look at it again in a few hours. I am getting very near to leaving and feel that I cannot wait much longer for this so-called new service promised.
We understand your frustrations, Colin, but we can only reiterate what we have been told, that the new Hostlink will be available soon.
Simon is right, the new link has a install date and subject to testing will go live, I expect, within a month.
Quote from: Lance on Oct 16, 2009, 18:54:48
Simon is right, the new link has a install date and subject to testing will go live, I expect, within a month.
That has been said since before, it was meant to be September then October, I can see the frustration. The trouble is the grass is not always greener on the other side. I don't even reboot my router and it settles back down. I must say the high pings are not as bad as they were and if it is that slow I just come back half an hour later and its generally fine.
I'm hoping it's not just me but...
My connection is right royally screwed right at the moment. It's like being back on dial-up watching the smilies above this text box load one at a time.
I've managed to complete 6 speedtest.net tests on 3 different servers and the results are quite frankly taking the piss. I've only managed to do one BT speedtest, as trying to do any more is likely to make me want to throw my PC across the room. The first and only result I could manage gave me 75kbps, lower than BT's own acceptable range! After I post this I'm off to see if I get any difference from connecting to the speedtest@speedtest_domain login.
I hate to say it, but if this is what I've got to put up with for the next month then frankly, no thank you. If this isn't fixed by end of next week I'll be voting with my feet and will be off to o2/Be.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/594838469.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/result/594839995.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/result/594841032.png)
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/594841702.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/result/594842383.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/result/594845080.png)
BT Speedtest:
QuoteDownload speed achieved during the test was - 75 Kbps
For your connection, the acceptable range of speeds is 600-7150 Kbps.
Additional Information:
Your DSL Connection Rate :9266 Kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 1180 Kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP Profile for your line is - 7150 Kbps
That's clearly unacceptable, Matt. I hate to sound like a stuck record, but have you rebooted your router? What's your SNR? If you could post your router stats, somebody might spot something, but otherwise, it's a call to IDNet, I'm afraid. :(
That's all I seem to be doing lately, rebooting the router. Last did it less than an hour ago.
Here's my router stats (Netgear DGN2000):
QuoteADSL Link Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 9266 kbps 1180 kbps
Line Attenuation 36.0 db 16.8 db
Noise Margin 8.9 db 6.1 db
And the results of a ping -n 100 idnet.com (is it worth posting the whole lot?):
QuotePing statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 91, Lost = 9 (9% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 28ms, Maximum = 3808ms, Average = 789ms
And in case anyone was wondering, the speedtest@speedtest_domain login worked, but the site it redirects you to wouldn't load. How ... ironic?
Sorry, but I can only suggest you call IDNet (0800 701 2000), and leave a message. They only usually respond to complete loss of service, out of hours, but if you say that the service is practically unusable, hopefully they will come back to you fairly soon.
Packet loss should not be occurring. Have you tried reducing the MTU on the router to see if you can reduce it i.e 1458 or 1400
QuoteI hate to say it, but if this is what I've got to put up with for the next month then frankly, no thank you. If this isn't fixed by end of next week I'll be voting with my feet and will be off to o2/Be.
The periodic congestion of Idnet's BT Centrals is only experienced by 20CN customers (ADSL Max), you're on 21CN WBC ADSL2+, so will be unaffected. You need to speak to Idnet as it's quite clearly an exchange or BT Wholesale issue.
02/Be LLU is generally superior to BT Wholesale's WBC ADSL2+ products.
just jumped into this thread (been doing other things lately) and I've been having to reboot my router regularly too. Pings seem to fluctuate wildly.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 39ms, Maximum = 70ms, Average = 53ms
Now If I reboot they'll drop to about 25ms.
After trouble with speeds before my holiday they seem to have picked up of late. So not complaining about that.
So what's been going on? Anyone care to fill me in? I really dont have the time to rad 24 pages of posts.
We think IDNet are still manually balancing the networks, but it should all be sorted within a few weeks, when the new hostlink goes live.
cheers simon
Hi,
I've posted on this issue a couple of times. Since I'm not one who likes to make a fuss and since it used to return to decent levels eventually I've never taken it any further. Lately however, every evening without fail, from about 5pm - midnight my pings go way up. This has been going on for the last several weeks and the camel's back finally broke tonight on a gaming server.
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 133ms, Maximum = 172ms, Average = 155ms
These are very typical values. Is there a specific reason for this, I see talk about something they're working on at the moment? I'm on GW5. This is the very reason why I left Virgin and joined IDNet, for the first couple of years everything was great but steadily the service has declined. Tell me if I need to call the helpline in the morning and what tests besides the above I need to present to them. Rebooting my router does nothing.
Thanks in advance.
Colin.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 120ms, Maximum = 172ms, Average = 154ms
I dont do online gaming but my two sons do on Xbox Live, my ping to idnet use to be 15/20 ms.
All we can say is that the new hostlink went live this morning, and as soon as it's been tested, IDNet will start moving people across, which should alleviate ping issues for those on the Max (8Mb) service.
Mine were poor this evening but seem to have settled with a reboot
It sounds as if the centrals are out of balance again...
Or it's another congested VP, there's a lot of those atm, as BT concentrate on WBC. FWIW, my WBC pings dropped 5ms yesterday as BT put more capacity on.
Quote from: cjenkins on Oct 29, 2009, 21:14:55
Hi,
I've posted on this issue a couple of times. Since I'm not one who likes to make a fuss and since it used to return to decent levels eventually I've never taken it any further. Lately however, every evening without fail, from about 5pm - midnight my pings go way up. This has been going on for the last several weeks and the camel's back finally broke tonight on a gaming server.
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 133ms, Maximum = 172ms, Average = 155ms
These are very typical values. Is there a specific reason for this, I see talk about something they're working on at the moment? I'm on GW5. This is the very reason why I left Virgin and joined IDNet, for the first couple of years everything was great but steadily the service has declined. Tell me if I need to call the helpline in the morning and what tests besides the above I need to present to them. Rebooting my router does nothing.
Thanks in advance.
Colin.
I too have been having problems with high pings on the servers that I play on recently. Last night was really quite bad so I thought I would post in a request this morning about it. I am on the 8Mb Max service.
It seems that others are already aware of the problem.
I also left Virgin for the same reasons as Colin above and have had until quite recently excellent service
High pings here this morning :(
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 60ms, Maximum = 143ms, Average = 106ms
Arrgh, you have done it again Gary,
C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 97ms, Maximum = 145ms, Average = 115ms
Every time you get high pings you "infect" my connection too :dunno:
But as we all know....its all Riks fault :mad:
As usual, IDNet's broadband status shows as "good service", I hate to think what it takes for it to be anything other than good in their eyes. No wonder IDNet is slipping slowly down the charts at DSL Zone - they charge for a premium service but for months have been unable to deliver what they promise. I will give them a week to sort out the new hostlink but if things dont improve I am going to Fast or Newnet, my money is too hard earned to keep throwing at a company that has been providing a substandard service for several months now.
Ok so I guess since nobody actually suggests it that there is little advantage to be gained by calling and reporting directly to IDnet? :o
Can anyone tell me then when the new hostlink will be finished testing and they will be moving me across. I am on the max service. Like Fox, I will be giving it that period of time to improve and then going elsewhere if it doesn't happen.
I can't tell you, IDNet may be able to, but it is worth calling support - there's been an issue with a central going out of balance again this week.
Ok thanks Rik :thumb:
Both of our Centrals were out of balance for a period of time this morning. Where one half is at capacity and the other half is bobbing around at 50 - 60%. It drives us nuts. We are hoping to be able to start moving traffic off of our Centrals and onto the Host Link from early next week. Then this nonsense will be behind us.
Regards
Simon
Thanks Simon :)
Good news, Simon. :thumb:
Great news Simon. :kiss:
Very good news!
:fingers: :fingers: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :dunno: :dunno:
Nice and quick tonight :-)
Quote from: zimmerframe on Oct 30, 2009, 21:52:35
Nice and quick tonight :-)
not for me, 2 reboots in an hour :(
Well I have been paying an extra £10 per month for low latency and priority at the exchange.
I used to get 31ms pings constant and then sub 30ms following my upgrade to Super Max, well for about a month! then. 61 ms if I'm lucky, and above 200 at others.
I ask myself, why am I paying a premium for a sub-standard service?
Well Idnet?
I used to love this company because it was just friggin awesome, but now it has gone the same way as ADSL24 & Plusnet did, go down the friggin pan.
I dont want to spend my life on a technical support line, I want the service I pay for. Is that so much to ask?
I am now paying in the region of 40% more for a service that is infinately worse!
Last chance Idnet, give me a date that u are upgrading your network or give me my MAC!
Simon West.
Yes yada yada yada.
Is now common place with IDNet, come pay over the odds for a sub standard service!
Now fed up with the drivel, and can't be bothered to phone customer support again.
Truth is, since ADSL2+, us poor ADSL noobs have been shafted!
I will not phone customer support about this, I just want my pings back to sub 30ms,
IDNet, this is your only contact from me before I request my MAC. I pay a premium (Super Max) price and have received a sub standard product!
Your choice. Sort it or lose me!
sawest
How can you make your only contact with Idnet on a unoffficial support forum?
As for a date of go live, it hopes to be early next week.
Quote from: sawest on Oct 31, 2009, 01:45:43
I will not phone customer support about this, I just want my pings back to sub 30ms,
IDNet, this is your only contact from me before I request my MAC. I pay a premium (Super Max) price and have received a sub standard product!
Your choice. Sort it or lose me!
If your only 'contact' with support is via an
unofficial forum, how exactly do you expect them to respond? Refusing to phone support when you have a problem and, then expecting said problem to be fixed as if by magic, strikes me as neither logical nor, for that matter, likely to produce a result... :)
Quote from: Fox on Oct 30, 2009, 11:04:12
Arrgh, you have done it again Gary,
C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com
Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 97ms, Maximum = 145ms, Average = 115ms
Every time you get high pings you "infect" my connection too :dunno:
But as we all know....its all Riks fault :mad:
As usual, IDNet's broadband status shows as "good service", I hate to think what it takes for it to be anything other than good in their eyes. No wonder IDNet is slipping slowly down the charts at DSL Zone - they charge for a premium service but for months have been unable to deliver what they promise. I will give them a week to sort out the new hostlink but if things dont improve I am going to Fast or Newnet, my money is too hard earned to keep throwing at a company that has been providing a substandard service for several months now.
It wasnt me ;D
Quote from: Tacitus on Oct 31, 2009, 08:38:15
If your only 'contact' with support is via an unofficial forum, how exactly do you expect them to respond? Refusing to phone support when you have a problem and, then expecting said problem to be fixed as if by magic, strikes me as neither logical nor, for that matter, likely to produce a result... :)
I have to agree, just call them, email them even, the Hostlink goes into action next week so this should all stop, if you called or emailed them, they may be able to put your mind to rest, its not like a call costs anything :dunno:
Quote from: sawest on Oct 31, 2009, 01:45:43
Yes yada yada yada.
Is now common place with IDNet, come pay over the odds for a sub standard service!
Now fed up with the drivel, and can't be bothered to phone customer support again.
Truth is, since ADSL2+, us poor ADSL noobs have been shafted!
I will not phone customer support about this, I just want my pings back to sub 30ms,
IDNet, this is your only contact from me before I request my MAC. I pay a premium (Super Max) price and have received a sub standard product!
Your choice. Sort it or lose me!
sawest
What do you want me to say? The problems have been well documented here, the new IPStream service will go live in the next week, after which all the issues of congested BT VPs and unbalanced centrals will go.
This is a user-to-user forum, if you want an answer from IDNet, you need to talk to them.
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Oct 30, 2009, 13:28:50
Both of our Centrals were out of balance for a period of time this morning. Where one half is at capacity and the other half is bobbing around at 50 - 60%. It drives us nuts. We are hoping to be able to start moving traffic off of our Centrals and onto the Host Link from early next week. Then this nonsense will be behind us.
Regards
Simon
Thanks for the info Simon. By the way am I on the dodgy out of balance pipe? Because I have put a bit of weight on over the past few weeks and wondered if it was that which was unbalancing everything. ;D
;D
It's because I'm now on WBC, Alf, that's really hit the balance...
Quote from: Rik on Oct 31, 2009, 09:35:16
......... the new IPStream service will go live in the next week, after which all the issues of congested BT VPs and unbalanced centrals will go.
Er,
will go? Tempting and fate spring to mind :)
On a different note, it's good to see you back Rik, but you really shouldn't spend so much time here until you're sure you are fully recovered. :)
I'm sure Sue is soothing your fevered brow, but do as you're told and take care.... ;D
Will go, Tac. :) The problems IDNet have been having for the past few months is that their centrals keep going out of balance, they're delivered with two 77.5M segments to each 155M pipe. What has been happening is that one is running hot while the other is empty (it's a BT issue). Hostlink is delivered over a single gigabit link, with a reserve in case of failure, so it can't go out of balance.
Thanks for the concern, I am going to have to take it a bit easier as the pneumonia has returned and it's wiping me out a bit...
Another attempt by BT to screw up the smaller operators and try to grab the customers for themselves. Or am I being paranoid? :eek4: ;D
Well my pings seem to be back to normal (averaging at 30ms and getting really good at times). During peak usage times it went up to 150ms or so. But unlike O2, I never got kicked off of any servers, as although the line was slower, it was usable. O2's connection just died, so at lead IDnet were keeping ontop off thje demand.
However, I think being without a pc for a few weeks might have meant I missed the worse.
Quote from: Rik on Oct 31, 2009, 13:04:30
Will go, Tac. :) The problems IDNet have been having for the past few months is that their centrals keep going out of balance, they're delivered with two 77.5M segments to each 155M pipe. What has been happening is that one is running hot while the other is empty (it's a BT issue). Hostlink is delivered over a single gigabit link, with a reserve in case of failure, so it can't go out of balance.
Thanks for the concern, I am going to have to take it a bit easier as the pneumonia has returned and it's wiping me out a bit...
Take it easy Rik, put your feet up and have a mellow night ;D
Thanks, Gary, I intend to. :)
Quote from: Rik on Oct 31, 2009, 18:00:26
Thanks, Gary, I intend to. :)
Good, it is great to see you back, but all work and no erm...rest thats it ;) talk to you soon, should have my Mac on Monday so I'll be in play mode, hopefully :fingers: I'm off for dinner and to curl up on the sofa with my better half ;D
Likewise. And a DR steak. :)
Great! Rebooted the router to get a better ping and now my connection won't come back up.
Not happy at the mo.
What the adsl or the ppp?
Quote from: stevethegas on Nov 01, 2009, 20:33:45
What the adsl or the ppp?
Dunno, router status window didnt show no IP address or DNS etc.
QuoteMAC Address
IP Address
Network Type PPPoA
IP Subnet Mask
Gateway IP Address
Domain Name Server
I did wonder whether you'd engineered a stale session and was going to suggest leaving the router disconnected for 30 mins to clear it. Apparently sometimes entering a false idnet login password in the router will sometimes reset the session
Quote from: stevethegas on Nov 01, 2009, 21:19:54
I did wonder whether you'd engineered a stale session and was going to suggest leaving the router disconnected for 30 mins to clear it. Apparently sometimes entering a false idnet login password in the router will sometimes reset the session
It came back on itself. Not the first time its happened after a reboot.
I don't know which router your using but on some you can just drop the ppp connection for a minute or so instead of rebooting
Quote from: stevethegas on Nov 01, 2009, 21:28:48
I don't know which router your using but on some you can just drop the ppp connection for a minute or so instead of rebooting
Netgear DG834G, I know 2wires have that option, i dont think netgears do.
I an not using one at present but if I recall correctly on the router status page there are 2 buttons one for connection status and one for connection stats I think the first one ?? when opened allows you to drop the PPP ( well you can disconnect without reboot.)
It would have been interesting to know whether it was sync or PPP, Paul. If it happens again, get onto IDNet and see if they can shed any light.
Quote from: Sebby on Nov 01, 2009, 22:57:49
It would have been interesting to know whether it was sync or PPP, Paul. If it happens again, get onto IDNet and see if they can shed any light.
I contacted support last time it happened, support said they couldn't see any problems last time.. It stayed down for ages.
This time it was down for about 20mins.
Log says "LCP is allowed to come up" when i had the problem, but i didnt have an IP address set and couldn't use my connection, All lights was green on the router.
Same happened to me today on two different IDNet lines, each on a different exchange. Pings over 300ms on both, so dropped the PPP and tried to reconnect. Neither line would reconnect, one for well over two hours, the other for more than five minutes. This is not an isolated incident as it's happened many times before, although on those occasions reconnections usually happen within two minutes.
Pings on one line went back to 150ms+ after an hour, so this time I tried a full reboot. Synced immediately, but took 4 minutes to connect to IDNet.
Several weeks ago, totally fed up with IDNet, I requested my MAC. I received a phone call the following morning from a staff operative explaining that there would be a new hostlink arriving on the 20 something of October, that this would solve all problems and that I should reconsider moving away. Stupidly, I believed them, put on hold the use of my MAC and have put up with a terrible connection ever since, the hostlink still not active, being "tested" instead.
Never in the history of anything have I received so many empty promises from one company, and today's troubles are the end for me. Now IDNet won't be losing just one customer, me, they'll be losing two, the owner of the other line I help with too.
IDNet, don't make promises you can't keep.
Quote from: Dopamine on Nov 02, 2009, 01:20:35
....I received a phone call the following morning from a staff operative explaining that there would be a new hostlink arriving on the 20 something of October, that this would solve all problems and that I should reconsider moving away. Stupidly, I believed them, put on hold the use of my MAC and have put up with a terrible connection ever since, the hostlink still not active, being "tested" instead.....
If they said the new hostlink would 'arrive' on the 20th October (ie be delivered to them by BT) they are quite probably correct.
What would you rather they do? Have the hostlink delivered and then go live the same day without a period of testing? Given the problems WBC has caused for everyone - not just iDNet - they would rightly be accused of crass stupidity.
Looks like they can't win on this one.
They hoped to stary moving people early this week, that was the last message Dopamine, if you had read through a few posts you would have seen Rik's post, the new link has to be tested, you cannot transfer thousands of customers and then go "oops it went wrong, guess we should have tested it" which would method you have preferred, no testing and maybe issues or a better new connection with backup? Yes the tested route I'm sure ::)
Let me guess, we would have seen high pings, connection drops and sync problems if it was not tested?.
So no change in service then.
Mac code requested today and I will bear with it another 4 days, 5 months of waiting for a resolution to high pings has come to an end for me. I am afraid I am not willing to wait for testing and teething problems. I hope the new hostlink works out for the peeps on Max and I will continue to keep an eye on proceedings in case my new ISP does not work out.
Good luck!
How's your dad, Mo?
Rik,
He is fine, the last time I saw him he had just installed Win 7 and was getting everything back in working order :laugh:. His health could be better but only to be expected when you reach 126 years of age!. He will appreciate you asking and I will pass on your regards.
Please do. :)
My ping is pants again
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=162ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 162ms, Maximum = 193ms, Average = 183ms
Plus I lost service this weekend 3 times (Friday night for over 2 hours, Saturday night for over 2 hours, Sunday afternoon for about 30 mins), the router was synced but no service. I hoped it was IDNet moving me over to the host link but look at my pings today I guess not.
IDNet are not, automatically, moving people over to the new service. To get connected on the hostlink, you will need to restart your PPP session (or reboot your router).
After a month, anyone who hasn't reconnected and therefore still on the old central will be manually kicked off the network forcing the new session :)
Is that with immediate effect, Lance?
Simon has just answered my question in the hostlink announcement thread. It seems, if you reboot your router, you should then be connected to the new hostlink, with standard ADSL connections.
i've rebooted mine and my pings are around 12ms now. 4ms drop from what i used to have (when it wasnt c*cking up) :)
time will tell tonight.
:fingers:
Funny, I just rebooted and my pings have gone from around 30 to an average around 70/75 .....
Better check with support, Tac, in case something odd has happened, eg you re-connected to a central.
I was just wondering, is there a way to check if we're on the new hostlink, perhaps by running a tracert?
I don't know, Seb, someone would have to do a before and after to see...
:update:
OK, to check if you've connected to the hostlink, do a tracert to idnet.net. If the first hop IP address ends in 101 or 102, you're on the hostlink. For WBC customers, that will be 99/100. :)
In theory. It doesn't seem to working though.
C:\Users\Paul>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 13 ms 14 ms 13 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 13 ms 14 ms 13 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 14 ms 13 ms 14 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
I'm not on the new hostlink then. must be everyone moving to the new hostlink giving me the better ping ;)
It would appear you're not...
Looks like a reboot dont always move you then!
I've let Simon know...
It might be worth giving the router 5 minutes or so to ensure the PPP clears...
well i've gotta go turn the router off anyways, need to put a new surge protector in, the other one is not working no more!
Sorry, unless I'm not seeing something on my phone, I don't understand what IP address we're supposed to be looking for.
I'm on max, yet the IP of the first hop ends 99. Perhaps it's the other way?
tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 25 ms 21 ms 21 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 26 ms 23 ms 21 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 24 ms 25 ms 33 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 24 ms 29 ms 34 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 24 ms 25 ms 23 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
The highlighted line will end in 99 or 100 for WBC, 101 or 102 for IPStream Connect.
Quote from: Sebby on Nov 02, 2009, 15:04:40
I'm on max, yet the IP of the first hop ends 99. Perhaps it's the other way?
Shouldn't be, Seb, I'm getting 99 on WBC.
Quote from: Sebby on Nov 02, 2009, 15:04:40
I'm on max, yet the IP of the first hop ends 99. Perhaps it's the other way?
Can you call support Seb.
ok, i powered off for 5mins while changing the plug, still looks like i'm not on the new hostlink.
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 13 ms 12 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 13 ms 13 ms 14 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
You're definitely on the hostlink, Paul, I'm trying to find out more.
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 63 ms 99 ms 99 ms dsldevice.lan [192.168.1.254]
2 2228 ms 2297 ms 2430 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 2244 ms 1444 ms 2171 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 2217 ms 1967 ms 1761 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 2242 ms 2710 ms 3111 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 3448 ms 2810 ms 2982 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
:dunno:
Clearly something is not working as Simon expects, it's being investigated now.
Better following a third PPP reboot:
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 97 ms 99 ms 98 ms dsldevice.lan [192.168.1.254]
2 145 ms 205 ms 155 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 151 ms 254 ms 163 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 445 ms 225 ms 346 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 197 ms 166 ms 177 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 145 ms 93 ms 99 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
This is what I'm getting after a router reboot.
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 59 ms 99 ms 99 ms speedtouch.lan [192.168.1.254]
2 64 ms 16 ms 16 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 16 ms 18 ms 16 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 17 ms 35 ms 19 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 17 ms 16 ms 17 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 17 ms 17 ms 15 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Are those pings better, Ray?
mine hardly moves.. unlike that past few weeks.
C:\Users\Paul>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 13 ms 13 ms 12 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 13 ms 14 ms 13 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 14 ms 13 ms 12 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 14 ms 15 ms 14 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
root@saturn:~# ping -c 20 www.idnet.net
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=12.9 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=13.0 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=12.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=12.9 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=12.5 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=12.2 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=12.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=12.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=12.2 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=12.9 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=11 ttl=59 time=13.2 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=12 ttl=59 time=12.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=13 ttl=59 time=12.5 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=14 ttl=59 time=12.7 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=15 ttl=59 time=13.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=16 ttl=59 time=12.7 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=17 ttl=59 time=12.7 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=18 ttl=59 time=13.0 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=19 ttl=59 time=12.3 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=20 ttl=59 time=12.2 ms
--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19027ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 12.240/12.693/13.499/0.348 ms
Quote from: Rik on Nov 02, 2009, 15:20:11
Are those pings better, Ray?
Around my normal, Rik.
Quote from: Tacitus on Nov 02, 2009, 07:21:06
If they said the new hostlink would 'arrive' on the 20th October (ie be delivered to them by BT) they are quite probably correct.
What would you rather they do? Have the hostlink delivered and then go live the same day without a period of testing? Given the problems WBC has caused for everyone - not just iDNet - they would rightly be accused of crass stupidity.
Looks like they can't win on this one.
How daft can you get? "What would you rather they do?" ::)
I rather they tell me approximately when a fix might happen. If that's after ten days of testing, then tell me that the hostlink arrives on x so will solve problems on x + 10, not try to fool me into believing the fix will be sooner.
Quote from: Gary on Nov 02, 2009, 08:02:22
They hoped to stary moving people early this week, that was the last message Dopamine, if you had read through a few posts you would have seen Rik's post, the new link has to be tested, you cannot transfer thousands of customers and then go "oops it went wrong, guess we should have tested it" which would method you have preferred, no testing and maybe issues or a better new connection with backup? Yes the tested route I'm sure ::)
Same reply. Stupid comment.
Quote from: Dopamine on Nov 02, 2009, 15:29:45
Same reply. Stupid comment.
Unnecessarily abusive, Dopamine.
Quote from: psp83 on Nov 02, 2009, 15:23:34
mine hardly moves.. unlike that past few weeks.
C:\Users\Paul>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 13 ms 13 ms 12 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 13 ms 14 ms 13 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 14 ms 13 ms 12 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 14 ms 15 ms 14 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
root@saturn:~# ping -c 20 www.idnet.net
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=12.9 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=13.0 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=12.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=12.9 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=12.5 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=12.2 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=12.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=12.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=12.2 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=12.9 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=11 ttl=59 time=13.2 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=12 ttl=59 time=12.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=13 ttl=59 time=12.5 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=14 ttl=59 time=12.7 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=15 ttl=59 time=13.4 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=16 ttl=59 time=12.7 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=17 ttl=59 time=12.7 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=18 ttl=59 time=13.0 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=19 ttl=59 time=12.3 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=20 ttl=59 time=12.2 ms
--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19027ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 12.240/12.693/13.499/0.348 ms
Can I come and game at your house? lol. Those are some nice pings. I'll be happy when mine get back to the low twenties.
Quote from: Rik on Nov 02, 2009, 15:05:56
tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 25 ms 21 ms 21 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 26 ms 23 ms 21 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 24 ms 25 ms 33 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 24 ms 29 ms 34 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 24 ms 25 ms 23 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
The highlighted line will end in 99 or 100 for WBC, 101 or 102 for IPStream Connect.
Yeah, but some of them have been different to that. Paul's (above) was [212.69.63.51].
Mine is currently:
Tracing route to idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms 1 ms <1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 32 ms 33 ms 31 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 32 ms 39 ms 33 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 34 ms 305 ms 289 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 32 ms 33 ms 33 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 32 ms 33 ms 33 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Oh, the penny's just dropped. I'm on standard ADSL. :red:
Quote from: Dopamine
How daft can you get? "What would you rather they do?" ::)
I rather they tell me approximately when a fix might happen. If that's after ten days of testing, then tell me that the hostlink arrives on x so will solve problems on x + 10, not try to fool me into believing the fix will be sooner.
Given the vagaries of WBC and the problems iDNEt have had with BT, to give a firm date when all would be well would be asking for a fall. They might perhaps have offered more information but given the problems they've had I can understand their reluctance to do so.
You are simply accusing them of ulterior motives which I very much doubt were there. Your default assumption seems to be that everybody is dishonest - you shouldn't judge others by your own standards. :)
Quote from: Simon on Nov 02, 2009, 16:24:40
Yeah, but some of them have been different to that. Paul's (above) was [212.69.63.51].
I know, Simon's looking into it... Paul is definitely on the hostlink.
Seems that 20CN and 21CN report different addresses: 21CN connections show the L2TP Tunnel Endpoint and 20CN connections show the Loopback address.
S
old tracert :
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 123 ms 113 ms 131 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 166 ms 162 ms 145 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 133 ms 134 ms 147 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 145 ms 139 ms 152 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 131 ms 135 ms 144 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Tonights:
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 13 ms 12 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 13 ms 12 ms 13 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 19 ms 13 ms 13 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Tonights 2nd hop has a different IP address to my old one, so something has changed.
Following reboot:
Tracing route to idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 32 ms 29 ms 29 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 30 ms 29 ms 31 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 33 ms 31 ms 33 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 33 ms 31 ms 31 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 31 ms 32 ms 31 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
So, am I now on the new hostlink?
Quote from: Rik on Nov 02, 2009, 14:39:50
Better check with support, Tac, in case something odd has happened, eg you re-connected to a central.
Apparently that is what happened Rik. Actually Simon rang me before I was able to ring him. After a few tests he established what was going on and forced a new session. Following a router reboot my pings are now down in the normal range.
I don't know whether to put this in a separate thread, but to have the MD of your ISP ring you, since he had noticed my earlier comment on this forum regarding excessive pings is truly exemplary service. :)
I left the router off for about 5mins and I'm getting this. ???
C:\Documents and Settings\deano>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * 24 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 24 ms 23 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 28 ms 318 ms 316 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
I'm sure Simon will appreciate that comment, Tac.
Quote from: juiceuk on Nov 02, 2009, 16:37:34
I left the router off for about 5mins and I'm getting this. ???
C:\Documents and Settings\deano>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * 24 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 24 ms 23 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 28 ms 318 ms 316 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Are your pings better? The earlier advice I was giving on IP addresses has clearly not worked as expected.
Quote from: Tacitus on Nov 02, 2009, 16:35:35
I don't know whether to put this in a separate thread, but to have the MD of your ISP ring you, since he had noticed my earlier comment on this forum regarding excessive pings is truly exemplary service. :)
It's a pity not everyone appreciates the efforts IDNet often go to, so thanks for posting that, Tac. :thumb:
Its feels alot quicker tonight.
Its tempting to try when I get home but support will have gone home, I think I'll give my router a dose of something beginning v and ending with a. :fingers:
If you have any major problems, Steve, call the out of hours number.
My pings are not fantastic, but then I don't game, so it's not too much of a problem:
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 31ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 30ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 31ms
Quote from: stevethegas on Nov 02, 2009, 16:40:25
Its tempting to try when I get home but support will have gone home, I think I'll give my router a dose of something beginning v and ending with a. :fingers:
You wont need to reboot, you might have a pipe all to yourself :laugh:
I'm averaging 27ms on WBC.
Quote from: Rik on Nov 02, 2009, 16:42:32
I'm averaging 27ms on WBC.
Thats with interleaving on though? If so then thats good.
Mines on fast and averaging 13ms. Interleaving takes mine near the 100ms mark.
Yes, interleaving on, sadly.
Well, I'm happy that it's working. What's a few milliseconds between friends? :)
Gaming friends or normal people? ;D :out: :hide:
Quote from: Simon on Nov 02, 2009, 16:45:43
Well, I'm happy that it's working. What's a few milliseconds between friends? :)
A headshot ???
;D
Now on the 99 IP, was on the 59 before. Need to give Simon another ring as everything has gone slow again. :(
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 10 ms 98 ms 99 ms dsldevice.lan [192.168.1.254]
2 1504 ms 1924 ms 1871 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 2267 ms 2184 ms 2429 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 2406 ms 1706 ms 1447 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 1689 ms 1666 ms 1895 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 2219 ms 2254 ms 2240 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Quote from: Sebby on Nov 02, 2009, 16:47:44
Now on the 99 IP, was on the 59 before. Need to give Simon another ring as everything has gone slow again. :(
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 10 ms 98 ms 99 ms dsldevice.lan [192.168.1.254]
2 1504 ms 1924 ms 1871 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 2267 ms 2184 ms 2429 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 2406 ms 1706 ms 1447 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 1689 ms 1666 ms 1895 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 2219 ms 2254 ms 2240 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
You've not connected to Tiscali by any chance? :eek4:
:)x
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 98 ms 90 ms 89 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 79 ms 78 ms 81 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 85 ms 99 ms 94 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 83 ms 79 ms 77 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 41 ms 41 ms * www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
7 53 ms 55 ms 49 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
This is the old link I think, will reset PPP tomorrow instead as it looks like some are still having ping issues on the new hostlink so will wait for it to settle down.
Btw, how do you reset PPP on a Netgear DG834? I could only find reboot and that will give me too high a sync if done in the day.
It's looking better now Rik.
C:\Documents and Settings\deano>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 192.168.1.1
2 24 ms 25 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 24 ms 24 ms 25 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 24 ms 24 ms 25 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 27 ms 24 ms 24 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
:D Watch out on the battlefield I'm back! Anyone know why my first hop says 3ms instead of 1ms? Do I have a lazy router? I'm using homeplugs if that would make a difference.
Quote from: Aaron on Nov 02, 2009, 16:53:25
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 98 ms 90 ms 89 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 79 ms 78 ms 81 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 85 ms 99 ms 94 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 83 ms 79 ms 77 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 41 ms 41 ms * www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
7 53 ms 55 ms 49 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
This is the old link I think, will reset PPP tomorrow instead as it looks like some are still having ping issues on the new hostlink so will wait for it to settle down.
Btw, how do you reset PPP on a Netgear DG834? I could only find reboot and that will give me too high a sync if done in the day.
Not necessarily, it seems the IP addresses are not working as expected.
Quote from: juiceuk on Nov 02, 2009, 16:59:53
:D Watch out on the battlefield I'm back! Anyone know why my first hop says 3ms instead of 1ms? Do I have a lazy router? I'm using homeplugs if that would make a difference.
Homeplugs could well cause that.
Quote from: Rik on Nov 02, 2009, 17:11:02
Not necessarily, it seems the IP addresses are not working as expected.
One thing i noticed Rik..
I got moved from
telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55] to
telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]So maybe if the 2nd line changes from your old tracert then you've been moved?
It seems it's something like that, Paul.
Forum seems to be struggling abit.
I believe it's being looked into. :)
It's fine from my C&W connection
It's fine here now, but I believe it was a bit sluggish earlier.
I put some salt on it. ;D
Murderer
It's a tough job but someone had to do it. ;D
Quote from: Rik on Nov 02, 2009, 17:46:32
I put some salt on it. ;D
I had to think about that, but... :argh: :grn: ;D
:ithank:
Quote from: Rik on Nov 02, 2009, 17:47:45
It's a tough job but someone had to do it. ;D
Come around mine, just stepped on 3 while going out the back to feed the rabbit and i wasn't wearing any shoes or socks! YUK!
Get a hedgehog, they love slugs
Quote from: psp83 on Nov 02, 2009, 17:50:15
Come around mine, just stepped on 3 while going out the back to feed the rabbit and i wasn't wearing any shoes or socks! YUK!
Have you learnt your lesson though? ;D
Quote from: Glenn on Nov 02, 2009, 17:51:12
Get a hedgehog, they love slugs
As the stubble grows back, I feel I have one in my underpants. :whistle:
Quote from: Rik on Nov 02, 2009, 17:52:37
Have you learnt your lesson though? ;D
What, get rid of the rabbit and i wont have to feed it every night and stand on snails and sluggs?
Christmas is coming up so thinking about feeding it twice a day ;) haha.
im just confuddled more than ever now who needs to do this re boot, or indeed do you need to do it.what if you dont will things get worse.
I think im on a Max package so will I be switched over or do I need to rebboot.
sorry if Ive missed the explanation somewhere :whistle: :)
Quote from: Rik on Nov 02, 2009, 17:53:04
As the stubble grows back, I feel I have one in my underpants. :whistle:
Slugs in your pants :eek4:
Quote from: Baz on Nov 02, 2009, 17:55:57
im just confuddled more than ever now who needs to do this re boot, or indeed do you need to do it.what if you dont will things get worse.
I think im on a Max package so will I be switched over or do I need to rebboot.
sorry if Ive missed the explanation somewhere :whistle: :)
If you reboot now, you will go on the new hostlink, if not, you will be moved manually at a later date.
You need to re-boot, Baz. If you don't, in due course, IDNet will do it remotely.
so is it better to reboot now or wait. is there still bother with the new hostlink. will waiting be better till it sorts itself out.when will the remote switch be
Yes, no, a week or so to judge by how well things have gone today.
From this (30th Oct)
To this (2nd Nov)
Looks a little different lol.
Edit: Links removed, possible risk
[attachment deleted by admin]
hmmmmm decisions eh? dont want to reboot only if its going to cause bother
Baz, reboot now, then tell me if it is worth it ;)
WOAH!!!!!!!!!!!! hope thats nothing on my system but I clicked your image Juiceuk and got this
Press Enter to agree to use Imagevenue.com in accordance with our rules.
ENTER
read TOS
and a page of porn :o
Quote from: Glenn on Nov 02, 2009, 18:03:47
Baz, reboot now, then tell me if it is worth it ;)
you not tried it yet then Glenn..........if not you go 1st and tell me ;D ;D
I'm still at work :(
Quote from: Baz on Nov 02, 2009, 18:05:09
WOAH!!!!!!!!!!!! hope thats nothing on my system but I clicked your image Juiceuk and got this
Press Enter to agree to use Imagevenue.com in accordance with our rules.
ENTER
read TOS
and a page of porn :o
So did I. :(
Ah sorry I don't get ads using hostman. I said the pictures are family safe too so they should not be putting porn ads. Think I'll not be using them from now on.
Quote from: Baz on Nov 02, 2009, 18:05:09
WOAH!!!!!!!!!!!! hope thats nothing on my system but I clicked your image Juiceuk and got this
Press Enter to agree to use Imagevenue.com in accordance with our rules.
ENTER
read TOS
and a page of porn :o
Damn, got the popup but not the porn :(
;D
:laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: Baz on Nov 02, 2009, 18:05:09
WOAH!!!!!!!!!!!! hope thats nothing on my system but I clicked your image Juiceuk and got this
Press Enter to agree to use Imagevenue.com in accordance with our rules.
ENTER
read TOS
and a page of porn :o
Same here, Baz, I've removed the links and posted the images.
The proxy blocked it for me :rant2:
Quote from: juiceuk on Nov 02, 2009, 18:08:27
Ah sorry I don't get ads using hostman. I said the pictures are family safe too so they should not be putting porn ads. Think I'll not be using them from now on.
It would be appreciated if you didn't. There's a few here with heart conditions. ;D
Hey, if I've got to go, I want to go with a smile on my face. ;D
Sue will want to know why
I knew requesting my Mac code would do the trick. My pings have been a rock steady "17" for the past 2 hours after a reboot. I see a glimmer of light at the end of a very long tunnel.
Can someone confirm that .51 ip is the new hostlink?. If so, will turning off my router tonight mean there is a chance I could get put on a less reliable ip tomorrow?.
I dont want anything to change, so if the IDNET staff could tippy toe around and breath less deeply it would be appreciated.
The first time in 5 months my pings have been stable.
C:\Users\Jons>tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 34 ms 17 ms 18 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 18 ms 17 ms 17 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 20 ms 18 ms 17 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 18 ms 17 ms 17 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Jons>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes o
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% lo
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 17ms, Average = 16ms
51 appears to be the hostlink, Mo, as does 101/2.
These are on the central pipe, I am waiting for Baz first ;D
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=12.046 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=14.550 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=12.548 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=13.415 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=13.369 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=12.430 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=15.436 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=13.734 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=13.850 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=11.647 ms
--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 11.647/13.303/15.436/1.107 ms
Of course, as people move to the hostlink, the centrals will get faster anyway...
Quote from: stevethegas on Nov 02, 2009, 18:16:27
These are on the central pipe, I am waiting for Baz first ;D
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=12.046 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=14.550 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=12.548 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=13.415 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=13.369 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=12.430 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=15.436 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=13.734 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=13.850 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=11.647 ms
--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 11.647/13.303/15.436/1.107 ms
hey dont hang about for me Steve, feel free to switch ;D ;D
Ok then ;D ;D :phew:
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=12.576 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=14.575 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=13.458 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=14.094 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=13.187 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=14.508 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=16.394 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=11.234 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=12.515 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=14.719 ms
--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 11.234/13.726/16.394/1.376 ms
the latest from mine is
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 47ms, Average = 46ms
but I think ive always been about that,cant really remember.
after re boot
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.58.224.138: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 49ms, Average = 48ms
:dunno:
Don't ping the BBC, Baz, use www.idnet.net.
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 49ms, Maximum = 49ms, Average = 49ms
Now try a tracert...
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 50 ms 50 ms 52 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 49 ms 49 ms 50 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 50 ms 50 ms 49 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
You appear to be on the hostlink.
right so thats ok now then?. but pings have got slightly worse
Give support a ring/email in the morning and they can check for you.
ok thanks Rik
Well i've given it a good test tonight, Pings stayed around 13-14ms.
Hope it stays that way!
:thumb: :fingers: :fingers:
Things have now steadied out for me, and it doesn't get much better than this!
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 11ms, Average = 10ms
Throughput is the maximum possible for my profile as well. :thumb:
The ping to ping variability seems to be much less at present
It certainly does. It's what I'd call rock solid at present.
Same here :
PING 212.69.36.10 (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=10.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=10.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=10.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=10.0 ms
--- 212.69.36.10 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 10.0/10.0/10.0 ms
Rebooted router now, went from .55 to .99 on IP and getting a ping of 23-25, pretty nice for an interleaved line! It used to be 27-30ms :thumb:
Quote from: Sebby on Nov 02, 2009, 22:32:09
Things have now steadied out for me, and it doesn't get much better than this!
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 11ms, Average = 10ms
Throughput is the maximum possible for my profile as well. :thumb:
Mine is very similar now that I have had interleaving turned off and on the new Hostlink. I also now have my max sync of 8128 back, just waiting for my profile now to catch up currently on 6500 (always used to be 7150).
C:\Users\Colin>ping www.idnet.net
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 12ms
Nice to see some happy bunnies at last! :thumb:
I changed as well ;D and I have interleaving on.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 23ms
This is much better. :thumb:
[attachment deleted by admin]
You should change the thread title to be honest. 'Very low pings again' would be more apt :laugh:
My pings are the best I have seen for a long time
C:\Users\Fox>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 34ms, Maximum = 35ms, Average = 34ms
but..............my bandwidth sucks, I got less than half a meg on the DSL Zone speed test and 0.7 meg on ThinkBroadband. Ran BT speedtester and
Download speedachieved during the test was - 2732 Kbps
For your connection, the acceptable range of speeds is 600-7150 Kbps.
Additional Information:
Your DSL Connection Rate :8128 Kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 448 Kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP Profile for your line is - 7150 Kbps
Whats going on? I normally get 6-7 meg :bawl:
Fox, call support and let them know, there maybe something that they can do straight away to fix the issue
I am sure speedtest.net got silly since I changed to the hostlink, It thinks my preferred server is in Dublin, how strange.
It's the Guinness, Steve.
Performance is now fantastic; solid 10ms pings and and maximum throughput at any time of the day. This is the IDNet I remember. :)
ok explain how some people get good pings and others bad.mine havent changed much since switching to the new hostlink but i see that some people have great improvements
Mine haven't change either Baz, but I was starting at a low base, 22/23ms
Pity I don't have a stable line to benefit from the ping.
Quote from: Sebby on Nov 03, 2009, 18:56:35
Performance is now fantastic; solid 10ms pings and and maximum throughput at any time of the day. This is the IDNet I remember. :)
I wish mine was. My pings are now fantastic, but my download speeds have deteriorated rapidly since this mornings excellent speeds of about 6.3Mb when my fast mode was enabled, but now from around 4:30pm they are all over the place from about 2-4Mb, totally unstable. Not very happy, this IS NOT the Idnet I remember, when until up to a few weeks ago I used to get 6-7+ 24/7.
Colin
Quote from: Baz on Nov 03, 2009, 20:08:05
ok explain how some people get good pings and others bad.mine havent changed much since switching to the new hostlink but i see that some people have great improvements
I always had low pings (around 14ms) until recent problems. Mines only dropped about 2ms since the new hostlink.
not complaining just wondering why.
Quote from: wecpcs on Nov 03, 2009, 20:31:27
I wish mine was. My pings are now fantastic, but my download speeds have deteriorated rapidly since this mornings excellent speeds of about 6.3Mb when my fast mode was enabled, but now from around 4:30pm they are all over the place from about 2-4Mb, totally unstable. Not very happy, this IS NOT the Idnet I remember, when until up to a few weeks ago I used to get 6-7+ 24/7.
Colin
:argh: Just when we thought things were getting better!
Hmmm. My pings seem fine now, but only getting around 1mb throughput at the moment. I was getting upt 7 meg, average about 2 to 4 at the weekend. (but thanks for fixing the pings!)
Can only suggest you guys contact IDNet, but I'll also make them aware in the meantime.
Quote from: Baz on Nov 03, 2009, 20:46:37
not complaining just wondering why.
Distance has something to do with it, Baz, plus traffic levels on the BT part of the network.
Throughput here is fine, BT speed check gives me 6037 which is pretty good for 9am, it has been better but I'm not complaining, pings have dropped by about 1ms but at least its not the mess it was ;D
Good post, Dave. I too have often wondered how a few milliseconds can make such a difference in gaming, to the point that people seem to get quite irate over it. Not being a gamer, though, I probably don't appreciate the frustrations it appears to cause.
These guys pay top money and the frustration is very, very real. I am suggesting that the focus should be on response time excursions rather than lowest ping possible. That is a less confrontation approach that relates directly to ISP capacity, which IDNET seeks to excel in, and to the real world performance of the complete system; player, PC, ISP, onward link and game site. I have seen no evidence that IDNET is anything less than fully committed to its gamers.
I don't understand why you're trying to sugarcoat the situation. Why people want low latency connections, or whether BT Wholesale should accept the majority of the blame is besides the point. Idnet are a communications company that failed to communicate with its customers, over an issue that dragged on for several months. What is the point of a Network Status web page that permanently sat on green with "Good Service", throughout this troubled period?
Hi Dave
Online games use UDP packets which is a 'connection-less' tansport. That means that you can't send a UDP packet and demand a response. The nearest (albeit imperfect) tool availble to measure respose is an ICMP Echo-reply packet aka "ping". Thus the measurement, by definition, is round-trip (twice the time of a UDP transport in one direction). Not only that but ICMP is often given low priority and so as a tool it cannot be used as a definitive unit of measurement (in the manner of dropping a ruler for example). However, "high pings" do often correlate to a poor gaming experience.
We have been hugly frustrated waiting for this new 21CN capacity (only delivered 16 months late!). During which time we have been unable to afford to install extra short-term 20CN capacity. It has meant that we've had to freeze any growth of the company and juggle capacity hourly in order to try to effectively use what we had available to us. We were not always sucessful at that for which we apologise and we are very grateful to our loyal customers for sticking with us. We look forward to "business as usual" again now. Phew.
Thank you all.
Simon
Quote from: dujas on Nov 04, 2009, 12:43:15
...... Idnet are a communications company that failed to communicate with its customers, .....
That is not my peception, in fact the exact opposite. For example the preceding post from Simon and many others like it. Thx Simon.
It seems to me IDNET have told us what their plans were from the beginning, what the problems were, when solutions were expected and why the delays.
I have run, served and been served by high technology companies all my working life, some of the best. Technology is fragile, things go haywire. When they do what counts is getting a fix not putting the boot in. It does not help anyone. We seem to be beating up IDNET for getting tight on capacity for reasons beyond their control. This was unforseen, I never noticed and it is fixed. Yet we know many, many broadband customers are served by ISPs that seem to oversell capacity and do nothing. That I have noticed.
Thanks for the update Simon
Indeed, thanks for your honesty, Simon. :thumb:
:iagree: Thanks, Simon. :thumb:
Thanks for the update, Simon. :)
Well I found the cause of my low download speeds, my router died on me....... :mad:
So i just bought a Netgear DGN2000, seems to be ok so far and my download is back up to 6-7 meg :thumb:
Just flashed the firmware up to 1.1.8 (latest on their site) managed not to brick it so things are going good today
Great stuff. :)
Quote from: Fox on Nov 04, 2009, 14:48:45
So i just bought a Netgear DGN2000.
Mines just came now. Hope it works ok on my line.
Thanks for the update Simon, hopefully you can get back on track now :fingers:
Just to add my pings seem very good now as well.
I've had the email to ? upgrade to adsl2+ but now I may have a bit of ping stability at last I don't really see there would be any benefit.
Extra bandwidth allowance and the potential for extra speed?
I've noticed pings have increased tonight. Hope its not a sign of problems and that it clears.
Mine are very similar to what they have been for days,no obvious increase for me tonight.
Still averaging 22ms to IDNet here
back to normal 14-16ms now, was around 70ms (ish).
Is anyone else experiencing low throughput and high pings around this time each day?
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 29 ms 99 ms 98 ms speedtouch.lan [192.168.1.254]
2 497 ms 489 ms 189 ms telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
3 523 ms 546 ms 725 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 1137 ms 801 ms 210 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 1905 ms 1862 ms 1790 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 2498 ms 3290 ms 2532 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Not here, Seb. Could this be related to the Faraday outage?
tracert www.idnet.net
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 23 ms 23 ms 23 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 22 ms 21 ms 25 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 22 ms 21 ms 23 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 24 ms 23 ms 23 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 23 ms 23 ms 25 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
It could be, though I believe it's been the same for the past week now (since the new hostlink).
Talk to support, then, it's all you can do.
This is mine via the hostlink,not bad for max :thumb:
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 4.659 ms 0.687 ms 0.601 ms
2 telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net (212.69.63.51) 11.111 ms 10.730 ms 10.299 ms
3 telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net (212.69.63.243) 11.616 ms 10.846 ms 11.080 ms
4 redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net (212.69.63.5) 11.256 ms 11.824 ms 11.351 ms
5 redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net (212.69.63.225) 11.384 ms 10.371 ms 11.853 ms
Quote from: Rik on Nov 09, 2009, 12:37:36
Talk to support, then, it's all you can do.
I think it must be exchange congestion.
Have you tried isolating the router from all but one machine on your LAN, to eliminate any background processes?
I have. I must admit, I'm wondering if the router is bogging down when there's a lot of LAN traffic. The router needs replacing anyway for something a bit more robust, so we'll see what happens. :)
Everything is fine up here in sunny Yorkshire. My router displayed similar symptoms just before it died last week. Got a Netgear DGN2000 to replace it and all is well again. I have had nice low pings since the move to the new hostlink.
Thanks, Fox, think I'm going to order a Draytek Vigor 2820VSn for work as it has ISDN failback too.