IDNetters Forums

I know, another poll, but by process of elimination maybe we can get somewhere, as it seems half those who voted on the previous poll on gw5 & adsl max were having problems & half werent, then maybe the issue lies with routing somewhere. I just went with the regions listed on a random region map I googled as geography was never my strong point :P

Please dont vote if you are not having problems.

Just a thought, but it might be more informative to try and do it by node.

Umm how do I (or we ) find out what node we are on?  :blush:

Unfortunately, it's not always straightforward. Some routers can track the info, some can't. It can be revealing, though. I'm in Milton Keynes and route through the MK node. If I lived in Newcastle, though, I'd route through Edinburgh. Hence, geography isn't always the key we'd like. Ideally, a better approach would be to collect exchanges, which people can do easily.

This is true, Rik, although I live in Leicestershire I seem to be routed through a Birmingham node.

Ok, well I'm on the Scarborough exchange, cant seem to find anything on my router that tells me what node I'm on.

Currently, the nodes are:

Birmingham   
Bristol   
Cardiff   
City of London   
Clyde Valley   
Derby   
Docklands   
Glasgow   
Guildford   
Leeds   
London North West   
Manchester
Milton Keynes
Newcastle
Peterborough
Preston
Sheffield
Slough
Southbank
Wolverhampton

A further three broadband interconnect nodes may be added, these additional sites would be Edinburgh, Nottingham and London South West.

My guess is that you'd be on the Sheffield node.

I'd hazard a guess at Leeds myself as that is closest, but bearing in mind this is a bt set up I wouldnt be surprised to find out I was on the Peterborough one   ;D

Me neither. ;D

Where is the info. re nodes to be found please ? Using Netgear DG834N.

That doesn't report the routing, sorry, Mist. :(

Quote from: Rik on Jul 23, 2009, 15:52:26
That doesn't report the routing, sorry, Mist. :(

Okay, thank you.

I'm not having a problem, but I believe I connect through Kingston (London SW?)

Not Guildford?

No, when Kingston went down a few weeks ago, so did my service, but I was away so all was fine when I got back. I did have a link with the backhaul nodes, but I can't find it a present  :blush:

It shows the bizarre nature of the node pattern, doesn't it. Nothing in the Highlands, but one at Birmingham and another at Wolverhampton.  :dunno:

And there was me thinking I went through illford which isn't even on the list!

what if i dont vote because my pings are ok, how do I see the results of the poll?

http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/RAS.htm Informs you how to try and find which RAS you connect to,whether its the same for 21CN nodes I am not sure.


I end up with 217.47.154.140 which I think belongs to esr9.miltonkeynes4.broadband.bt.net. Geographically it makes  some sense from Peterborough. My wife would say its obvious as its the nearest Ikea to us :out:


Why I don't end up at the Peterborough node may be due to the fact that I am on adsl max and the 20 nodes listed earlier are for 21 CN

To see the resula of the poll there should be a link just right of the options.

Quote from: Lance on Jul 24, 2009, 06:38:17
To see the resula of the poll there should be a link just right of the options.

maybe im being thick, but i cant see it

Do you not have to vote first?

Sorry, maybe it's an admin only option.

I'll check shortly from a normal users login.

Quote from: stevethegas on Jul 24, 2009, 06:41:54
Do you not have to vote first?

I dont want to vote and slew the results, as my pings are ok, but im interested in the results

Quote from: Lance on Jul 24, 2009, 06:48:36
Sorry, maybe it's an admin only option.

:thumb: thats ok

I couldn't see any results of the last poll on pings until I'd voted,whether that's a browser issue or the way the forum software is setup I don't know. I know on previous polls I could see the results prior to voting but not anymore

Quote from: stevethegas on Jul 24, 2009, 06:52:29
I couldn't see any results of the last poll on pings until I'd voted,whether that's a browser issue or the way the forum software is setup I don't know. I know on previous polls I could see the results prior to voting but not anymore

Same here Steve, I cant see the results unless I vote

It depends how the poll is set up, in the first place, as the are different options on views available.

oh well ::) its not the end of he world!

Thanks Glenn I've never needed to look there. That's two we've had recently I wonder what an inactive member would say ;D

I've amended the poll so now the option to view results should be available :)

Sorry my fault I did put it on show results only after vote, didnt think those who didnt need to vote would be interested. As it stands it seems there is no pattern so would effectively rule out a routing issue as the sole culprit

I didn't mean to create such a fuss  :blush:

Hiya Folks,

Just voted. I'm on GW5 and in North East Essex - which I've assumed is East.
I noticed last night whilst playing Online that my pings were a little erratic...jumping from low teens to high twenties/thirties/forties every 30 secs or so.  I was hosting and my chums were getting lag because of it....first time in a while.
I'm currently at work so don't know what it's like today.

Cheers,
Pete.

Pings and trace for me this morning

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=68ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=113ms 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 = 68ms, Maximum = 113ms, Average = 84ms

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    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.0.1
  2   100 ms    98 ms    90 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3   104 ms    93 ms   104 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4   152 ms   182 ms   219 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    98 ms   103 ms   115 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6   120 ms   125 ms   124 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

C:\Users\>

Everything is fine here.

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms 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 = 17ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 17ms



Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    88 ms    99 ms    99 ms  router [***.***.*.**]
  2    21 ms    21 ms    22 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3    35 ms    22 ms    25 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4    24 ms    21 ms    20 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    25 ms    19 ms    21 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    22 ms    19 ms    18 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

Quote from: Ray on Jul 27, 2009, 10:09:13
Everything is fine here.

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=17ms 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 = 17ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 17ms



Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    88 ms    99 ms    99 ms  router [***.***.*.**]
  2    21 ms    21 ms    22 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3    35 ms    22 ms    25 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4    24 ms    21 ms    20 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    25 ms    19 ms    21 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    22 ms    19 ms    18 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

But its not for me Ray and I have no idea why,  so called congestion is so low at my exchange  it would not cause these issues last night at 11pm my thoughput was a third of what it should be, I'm on the south coast between Portsmouth and Chichester, and everyday I get issues now, and this morning its awful, what makes me feel uneasy though, is people who have migrated away seem to be reporting pings, latency and speed as fine, I was going to sit and wait but Aquiss looks like they may be getting my cash at this rate.  :(

I agree. Things are still bad for me too :( :

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   108 ms   100 ms    86 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3    54 ms    63 ms    57 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4    33 ms    67 ms    60 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    97 ms    92 ms   104 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    85 ms    93 ms   103 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.


Pings were in the 200ms region throughout yesterday and throughput was beyond a joke. I've rebooted the router numerous times and even had IDNet switch off interleaving on my line to try and reduce latency. Not that that made any difference ::).

I hope IDNet can get to the bottom of this. In the almost 3 years I've been with them, I've never experienced so many problems as we have seen in the last couple of months :(.

Quote from: Gunnar on Jul 27, 2009, 10:00:31
Hiya Folks,

Just voted. I'm on GW5 and in North East Essex - which I've assumed is East.
I noticed last night whilst playing Online that my pings were a little erratic...jumping from low teens to high twenties/thirties/forties every 30 secs or so.  I was hosting and my chums were getting lag because of it....first time in a while.
I'm currently at work so don't know what it's like today.

Cheers,
Pete.

:welc:  Pete!  :karma:

Quote from: Gary on Jul 27, 2009, 10:16:25
I was going to sit and wait but Aquiss looks like they may be getting my cash at this rate.  :(

Interesting, perhaps, that the people who have reported improvements have both gone to Enta resellers.

Hi Pete and welcome to the forum. :welc: :karma:

Quote from: Simon on Jul 27, 2009, 10:52:20
Interesting, perhaps, that the people who have reported improvements have both gone to Enta resellers.

Could be Simon, ideally I would like to stay and wait it out and see what happens, its ok on a Sunny day I go in the garden but this morning its wet, and trying to do banking and ordering my medication was hell, suddenly its dropped again and seems faster  :dunno: when it effects my life lines like banking and medical stuff it p*isses me off. Oh well I would go online and game but that would be cr@p  :laugh: maybe more sedatives are needed  ;)

Sorry where are my manners,  :welc: :karma: Pete  :)

 8) Thanks Guys  8)

So are there still residual problems with GW5 ?  Or is it just random ?
I haven't tried the old switch it off, leave it for 30 mins and switch it on trick yet !

Cheers,
Pete.

We're told that there are no problems within the IDNet network, but some people are still experiencing problems. :(

Oooh.  :(   
I'll check my connection tonight and see if yesterday evening was just a blip for me.

Cheers,
Pete.

NP. :)

 :welc: Pete and :karma:

Just got on the net, my router has been off overnight:

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=168ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=161ms 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 = 136ms, Maximum = 174ms, Average = 159ms

Waiting for a reply on the email I sent friday with more tests, if they arent prepared to at least try to switch me to a different gw, even if its just to prove me wrong about it being all gw5 & max, after I've already asked twice if they will move me, then its time to ask for my mac code I think.

I understand. If what we have been told is right, it really shouldn't affect things if you're on a different realm, but it has to be worth a try.

Quote from: karser on Jul 27, 2009, 12:12:30
Just got on the net, my router has been off overnight:

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=168ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=161ms 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 = 136ms, Maximum = 174ms, Average = 159ms

Waiting for a reply on the email I sent friday with more tests, if they arent prepared to at least try to switch me to a different gw, even if its just to prove me wrong about it being all gw5 & max, after I've already asked twice if they will move me, then its time to ask for my mac code I think.

I think its now on a round robin so you may not be strictly on gw5 anyway, Rik will tell me if I am wrong with this  ;D

That's right, Gary. GW5 just identifies the realm, it no longer determines which central you are connected to. (I'm on GW5 on WBC, for example.)

Hi Pete - I'm north east essex too but with no problems.

I'm connected to the Highwoods exchange.

This is getting really bad now  :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=202ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=226ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=252ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=188ms 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 = 188ms, Maximum = 252ms, Average = 217ms

Edit: pages now take ages to load its getting like dialup

My pings are a bit wild today. Speed seems OK though. :dunno:


(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee318/mickconvoy/graph.jpg)

Let support know, people. Only if they can collect enough evidence can they identify a fault.

Quote from: Rik on Jul 27, 2009, 12:23:24
That's right, Gary. GW5 just identifies the realm, it no longer determines which central you are connected to. (I'm on GW5 on WBC, for example.)

That makes it all the stranger that the people that are consistently having problems seem mostly to be gw5 & adsl max

I know, it's what is puzzling us.

Quote from: Rik on Jul 27, 2009, 12:58:21
Let support know, people. Only if they can collect enough evidence can they identify a fault.

Have just done so Rik  :thumb:

Not good here in Cheshire on GW5 either. There is no exchange contention and I am syncing at the full 8128 kbps with a 12db noise margin and no interleaving.

I'm starting to tire a little of this now I'm afraid. I don't see rebooting my router at intervals as being any kind of answer, especially as I rely on things running smoothly here when I am away in Spain for weeks.

To me there does seem to be an ongoing issue which I hope I can sit out for a while longer.

Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 15, Received = 15, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 86ms, Maximum = 175ms, Average = 134ms

Can you let support have those figures, JB.

I have had to request my MAC code and am in the process of changing over to a new ISP as the pings and throughput are up and down like a yoyo. IDNet seem to have has nothing but problems since I joined them in January 2009. When I emailed them and then phoned them for my MAC they didn't even ask why I was leaving. I can't believe they are saying that there is nothing wrong with their network.

John

Quote from: Rik on Jul 27, 2009, 13:17:03
Can you let support have those figures, JB.

Will do Rik.

Quote from: EnglishBeef on Jul 27, 2009, 13:17:34
I can't believe they are saying that there is nothing wrong with their network.

That's what they tell us, John. Have you decided where you are going? If you feel like it, I'd be grateful if you could do some pings before and after migration and post back here with them. The more evidence, the closer we will get to a solution I believe.

Quote from: EnglishBeef on Jul 27, 2009, 13:17:34
I have had to request my MAC code and am in the process of changing over to a new ISP as the pings and throughput are up and down like a yoyo. IDNet seem to have has nothing but problems since I joined them in January 2009. When I emailed them and then phoned them for my MAC they didn't even ask why I was leaving. I can't believe they are saying that there is nothing wrong with their network.

John

Post back with your stats once you have moved, it may help those that stay get an improved service.

Quote from: karser on Jul 27, 2009, 12:59:20
That makes it all the stranger that the people that are consistently having problems seem mostly to be gw5 & adsl max

I am too on gw5 & ads max and my figures have been fine for over 2 weeks now, although I did have a blip last night and was starting to panic only to find one of my friends was downloading from my Windows Home Server. Obviously I realise that the server download would affect my upload which it did, but it also dragged down my download speed from 6.7Mb to just over 1Mb with a ping of 687 (normally 42). In the past when I have been on O2 (Access) and with ZEN, I have had sometimes 2 friends downloading from my server at the same time without affecting my browsing experience, but last night I certainly noticed slow browsing.
I am happy at the moment, but I too am keeping a watchful eye on things as I now have my own domain and email service, so switching ISP's is now painless.

Colin

We've seen a number of cases recently, Colin, where uploads have affected download speed badly.

I've signed up with AAISP. Should change over on Friday.

Here is some ping data before changing. I'm was on GW6 but was moved a few weeks ago to GW5 because of problems.

Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms 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 = 117ms, Maximum = 167ms, Average = 145ms

Thanks. If you wouldn't mind repeating the exercise after migration, Colin, it would be helpful.  :thumb:

Quote from: Lance on Jul 27, 2009, 12:35:00
Hi Pete - I'm north east essex too but with no problems.

I'm connected to the Highwoods exchange.

Hi Lance, I'm in Kirby Cross on the Frinton-On-Sea Exchange. I only really noticed it last night because the guys said the game seemed to be running quicker than usual ! Probably a one-off blip but I'll check this evening.

Hiya,

Well I checked tonight and performed a Router shutdown, pause, startup.
All seems well, stats below:

C:\Documents and Settings\Pete>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=10ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
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=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
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=11ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=59
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=14ms 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=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=11ms 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 = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 15ms, Average = 11ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Pete>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  192.168.2.1
  2    16 ms    39 ms    20 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3    14 ms    12 ms    12 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
  4    12 ms    12 ms    12 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    20 ms    16 ms    12 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    13 ms    12 ms    13 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

No mad spikes in the round-trip latency times. So must have just been a blip yesterday evening.

Cheers,
Pete.

Just an uneducated stab in the dark, but I wonder if the problems seem to be with GW5, simply because more people are on it, and that's what needs 'balancing'?    :dunno:

You would think that would affect everyone on gw5 if that were the case, but it seems from the polls that half are fine, & half are having problems. Also someone said when you connect now its a " round robin" as to which pipe you connect to, tho that doesnt seem reflected in where the problem area is.

Quote from: Rik on Jul 27, 2009, 13:25:00
We've seen a number of cases recently, Colin, where uploads have affected download speed badly.

I still have the same problem, and support have been next to useless at dealing with it - my ongoing fault and their efforts to deal with it apparently relegated to the bottom of the pile and forgotten about. In 4 years with Pipex (hardly a gold standard ISP), I needed to contact their support a handful of times. A year and a half with IDNet and I've lost count of the number of times I've needed to chase up ongoing problems. Yet is there actually a better ISP around? I'm not convinced, which is why I haven't asked for my MAC yet. What a shoddy industry the whole ISP business is.

It's such a shame to see an ISP go to pot like this. Whilst I sympathise that some of the problem might be outside of IDNet's network, I have no sympathy whatsoever for an ISP that allows its customer services department to ignore customer problems, either through uselessness or overwork. Expansion of their business should have been met with an adequate expansion of CS, as in today's market, especially at the expensive end of it, CS is the difference between retaining customers and losing them.

Well things look better today  :fingers:

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 - 6657 kbps

Thats the best I have seen in ages.


Pings look steady for me as well


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=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
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 = 30ms, Average = 30ms


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     1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.0.1
  2    30 ms    30 ms    29 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3    30 ms    29 ms    30 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4    31 ms    30 ms    30 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    30 ms    32 ms    30 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    30 ms    30 ms    30 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

Lets hope they stay like that, Gary!

Quote from: Lance on Jul 28, 2009, 08:29:17
Lets hope they stay like that, Gary!

Agreed Lance, that's how they SHOULD be, time will tell if a pipe gets congested again pretty quickly. I think the thing that annoys me is I was told all this was my exchange and BT when it was actually IDNET and its balancing, saying that what's done is done, but I wish there had been more transparency and less bull, if you know what I mean!

Gary,

It still could be / have been your exchange as well. I know support can get very specific exchange congestion figures depending on the make of the equipment in the exchange.

Another one experiencing wildly fluctuating pings but before I post any PingGraphs am I correct in assuming that if my IDNet Logon Username is:   phone number @idnet.gw5 I am in fact on gw5?
Probably an obvious answer but I have come across seemingly obvious answers being wrong before, to my acute embarrassment  :blush: 

That isn't the case now. The central you conect to is down to a round robin system so it could vary every time you connect. :)

Quote from: Lance on Jul 28, 2009, 08:44:54
Gary,

It still could be / have been your exchange as well. I know support can get very specific exchange congestion figures depending on the make of the equipment in the exchange.

I spoke with support yesterday Lance, I was told that the minimal level of exchange congestion would not have caused the throughput issues but it was in fact the congested IDNET pipe  :( lets just hope now

Quote from: Lance on Jul 28, 2009, 08:47:52
That isn't the case now. The central you conect to is down to a round robin system so it could vary every time you connect. :)

I think IDNET are limiting the number of users that log onto a pipe now to stop congestion, it seems more like balancing the network by hand is what has to be done.

Quote from: Lance on Jul 28, 2009, 08:47:52
That isn't the case now. The central you conect to is down to a round robin system so it could vary every time you connect. :)

How do I tell/know which central I am connected to at any given time ?

You can't, Ian.

Things seem to be looking more stable for me this morning :) :

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    24 ms    24 ms    24 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3    25 ms    24 ms    26 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4    26 ms    25 ms    25 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    26 ms    25 ms    25 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    27 ms    25 ms    25 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

Hopefully the pings will remain as things are now :fingers:.

That's what we're hoping, Tom.

Quote from: Dopamine on Jul 27, 2009, 23:03:48
I still have the same problem, and support have been next to useless at dealing with it - my ongoing fault and their efforts to deal with it apparently relegated to the bottom of the pile and forgotten about. In 4 years with Pipex (hardly a gold standard ISP), I needed to contact their support a handful of times. A year and a half with IDNet and I've lost count of the number of times I've needed to chase up ongoing problems. Yet is there actually a better ISP around? I'm not convinced, which is why I haven't asked for my MAC yet. What a shoddy industry the whole ISP business is.

It's such a shame to see an ISP go to pot like this. Whilst I sympathise that some of the problem might be outside of IDNet's network, I have no sympathy whatsoever for an ISP that allows its customer services department to ignore customer problems, either through uselessness or overwork. Expansion of their business should have been met with an adequate expansion of CS, as in today's market, especially at the expensive end of it, CS is the difference between retaining customers and losing them.

I can see from our records that James mailed you the following on 6th July:

"
Initial investigations indicate that this 'problem' is due to the upstream capacity being saturated, when an upload is initiated, which causes delays to the control packets that are regulating the flow of the download stream. i.e. if the speed of the upload could be limited to, say, 80% of the upstream capacity then that would leave enough bandwidth available for the download FTP process to signal back to the server that the data being downloaded has been correctly received in a timely manner. We are currently checking this hypothesis.
"

If you search the topic on Google you will find many references, such as:

http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPWindowSizeAdjustmentandFlowControl.htm

I think the two threads below pretty much sum it up:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22469770-Saturated-Uploads-affect-on-Download-Vice-versa
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21780890-Re-northeast-Concurrent-uploaddownload-transfer-slows-down-b

The ACKs for the download data flows are delayed because they get queued in the upload data stream. Almost by definition this only applies to circuits with asymmetric upload/download speeds. Some operating systems may perform better or worse, depending on how the TCP/IP stack is tuned.

I am sorry that you regard our service as shoddy. I do not know of any other industry that delivers limitless expert assistance free of charge for a highly complex service that costs so little to subscribe to.

Regards
Simon

Quote from: Rik on Jul 28, 2009, 10:20:48
That's what we're hoping, Tom.

Hmm... just had to force a reboot of the router to get the UPnP working properly and on the resync my ping baseline has jumped 3ms ??? Don't get me wrong, pings are still good but just seems a bit peculiar. Take a look:

Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     1 ms     1 ms     2 ms  192.168.0.1
  2    38 ms    33 ms    30 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3    30 ms    27 ms    27 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4    29 ms    31 ms    28 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    29 ms    28 ms    28 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    30 ms    28 ms    29 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

Would this mean I'm connected to a different GW at IDNet or would it be some peculiarity in BT's network I wonder?

Either, Tom. As the newsfader suggests, IDNet are requesting people not to re-boot routers atm...

Quote from: Rik on Jul 28, 2009, 10:32:29
Either, Tom. As the newsfader suggests, IDNet are requesting people not to re-boot routers atm...

I know - it was an error on my part. Should have realised that making that change causes a reboot :(

Check with support, they will be able to see where you're connected (though it shouldn't be on the congested pipe).

Quote from: Simon_idnet on Jul 28, 2009, 10:25:48
I can see from our records that James mailed you the following on 6th July:

"
Initial investigations indicate that this 'problem' is due to the upstream capacity being saturated, when an upload is initiated, which causes delays to the control packets that are regulating the flow of the download stream. i.e. if the speed of the upload could be limited to, say, 80% of the upstream capacity then that would leave enough bandwidth available for the download FTP process to signal back to the server that the data being downloaded has been correctly received in a timely manner. We are currently checking this hypothesis.
"

If you search the topic on Google you will find many references, such as:

http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPWindowSizeAdjustmentandFlowControl.htm

I think the two threads below pretty much sum it up:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22469770-Saturated-Uploads-affect-on-Download-Vice-versa
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21780890-Re-northeast-Concurrent-uploaddownload-transfer-slows-down-b

The ACKs for the download data flows are delayed because they get queued in the upload data stream. Almost by definition this only applies to circuits with asymmetric upload/download speeds. Some operating systems may perform better or worse, depending on how the TCP/IP stack is tuned.

I am sorry that you regard our service as shoddy. I do not know of any other industry that delivers limitless expert assistance free of charge for a highly complex service that costs so little to subscribe to.

Regards
Simon

It doesn't say much for the service that the only way to get a further response to my problem is for me to post on this forum. Maybe the promised phone call, or an email to me, would have saved a lot of problems...

... oh wait. Haven't I already had a phone call from a member of your staff apologising profusely for your support department's failure to deal with another, separate, query of mine?

Whoops, silly me. It's not just one phoned apology, but a forum message too regarding a different forgotten issue....

... and yet another phone call with another apology for an error by your support staff.

I acknowledge that a service that is prepared to apologise so frequently for the errors it makes is great, but as a consumer I'd be a lot happier if you ditched the repeated apologies and sorted the bloody problems out, without me needing to keep chasing you up. Either that, or keep me informed of what's going on. The 6th of July was three weeks ago.

Welcome to the world of customer service in a competitive industry, where nothing much seems to have changed since August 2008:

Quote from: Tim_idnet on Aug 29, 2008, 21:28:25
Thanks very much for the information and your feedback, most appreciated. I understand your frustration and sincerely apologise that we failed to get back to you on two occasions - which is most unsual for us - I will investigate what happened and will keep you posted.

Needless to say, nobody got back to me.