The official:
We've been investigating the ping spikes. It's been a curious one and what hasn't helped is that the issue has lacked consistency in that most customers seem to be unaffected. Mostly gamers (and not all of them for sure) seem to be affected for obvious reasons.
Though not yet confirmed, we suspect the route of the cause could be a faulty interface card. We're just waiting now for more data from some intensive debugging reports we've been running and then we should be in a better position to decide on the best solution. The ping spikes are almost certainly caused by the BGP scanner, though this in itself is not unusual and has proven to be a red herring, only the spikes are higher than would be expected which suggests they're the symptom of another issue. All configuration modifications to date have yielded little improvement which is leading us to the conclusion that we have a faulty interface card which may simply require replacing.
We're almost there but we want to be certain before we take the necessary steps to fix.
Any affected, sit tight for a couple of days. If no joy, post here or PM me and I will press for more info ;)
Hi, my pings are back down to 27ms which i am happy with buy any less and i would be in amazement
Jeff thanks for the info.
My problem is not the spikes its the fact i can no longer get a low ping under 50 that i always got until a couple of weeks ago.
Is this caused by the problem mentioned in your post and when the spikes issue is fixed the pings will drop?
Yeah, that's what I got from Tim on Friday, I posted the gist of it on the AG board.
Quote from: browney on Aug 20, 2006, 01:13:12
Hi, my pings are back down to 27ms which i am happy with buy any less and i would be in amazement
C:\WINDOWS>tracert idnet.net
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 3 ms 1 ms <10 ms 192.168.1.1
2 15 ms 13 ms 14 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 16 ms 14 ms 14 ms redbus-gw-fa0-0-1003.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 19 ms 15 ms 15 ms idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
:P
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 155 ms 199 ms 199 ms dsldevice.lan [192.168.1.254]
2 22 ms 22 ms 22 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 24 ms 23 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 24 ms 23 ms 24 ms redbus-gw-fa0-0-1003.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 24 ms 23 ms 23 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
:-\
(http://www.browneyonline.co.uk/browney/pictures/multiplayserver.JPG)
Still not 100% but a lot better than it was when I posted a week or so ago.
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert idnet.net
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my.router [192.168.1.1]
2 16 ms 17 ms 16 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 113 ms 271 ms 316 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert idnet.net
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my.router [192.168.1.1]
2 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 16 ms 18 ms 17 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 17 ms 17 ms 16 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert idnet.net
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my.router [192.168.1.1]
2 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 18 ms 16 ms 16 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 17 ms 18 ms 17 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 16 ms 17 ms 18 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert idnet.net
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my.router [192.168.1.1]
2 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 17 ms 16 ms 17 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 18 ms 16 ms 17 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert idnet.net
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms my.router [192.168.1.1]
2 15 ms 17 ms 16 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 16 ms 17 ms 17 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 17 ms 17 ms 18 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 18 ms 17 ms 17 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>
I have also seen a massive ping in the 3rd hop sometimes
i always get high pings in the 1st ???
That's your own router !!! :o :o
yeah, I noticed that! His router is taking 199ms to respond to a ping on his lan. Should be virtually instantaneous. Summat wrong there.
Have just been to my brothers who recently changed to Orange BB and i did a ping -t and in 15 mins he got 23ms at the lowest and 35 highest , i wish i hadn't gone to see him now , and the phone he got free is a cracker. :'(
Quote from: mrapoc on Aug 20, 2006, 15:43:46
i always get high pings in the 1st ???
Do you have a Speedtouch router? If you do it's a route tracing anomaly and nothing to worry about. Try
ping 192.168.1.254 and that will show the true latency to your router.
8)
TOG
Tracing route to dsldevice.lan [192.168.1.254]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms dsldevice.lan [192.168.1.254]
Trace complete.
Tracing route to www.l.google.com [66.102.9.104]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 98 ms 99 ms 199 ms dsldevice.lan [192.168.1.254]
2 24 ms 23 ms 23 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 25 ms 24 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 23 ms 24 ms 24 ms redbus-gw-fa0-0-1003.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 25 ms 24 ms 24 ms 213.228.201.13
6 25 ms 25 ms 30 ms 72.14.238.244
7 46 ms 46 ms 46 ms 216.239.49.254
8 35 ms 34 ms 33 ms 72.14.232.233
9 46 ms 46 ms 45 ms 64.233.174.187
10 47 ms 64 ms 48 ms 64.233.174.14
11 46 ms 44 ms 45 ms 66.102.9.104
Latest from Tim as promised - apologies for not getting it online until now - it went to my work addy ! :-[
"..Quick update for you as promised. Though not yet confirmed, we suspect the route of the cause to be a faulty interface card. We're just waiting now for some more data from some intensive debugging reports we've been running and then we should be in a better position to decide on the best solution. "
This was 5:30pm on Friday night so hopefully their continued testing will have thrown up some useful info and we'll hear more as soon as...
Quote from: mrapoc on Aug 20, 2006, 21:34:24
Tracing route to www.l.google.com [66.102.9.104]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 98 ms 99 ms 199 ms dsldevice.lan [192.168.1.254]
2 24 ms 23 ms 23 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 25 ms 24 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 23 ms 24 ms 24 ms redbus-gw-fa0-0-1003.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 25 ms 24 ms 24 ms 213.228.201.13
6 25 ms 25 ms 30 ms 72.14.238.244
7 46 ms 46 ms 46 ms 216.239.49.254
8 35 ms 34 ms 33 ms 72.14.232.233
9 46 ms 46 ms 45 ms 64.233.174.187
10 47 ms 64 ms 48 ms 64.233.174.14
11 46 ms 44 ms 45 ms 66.102.9.104
I can beat that heres my MaxPing ;D
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 49 ms 51 ms 51 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69
3 50 ms 50 ms 62 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 51 ms 51 ms 75 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90
5 56 ms 96 ms 188 ms 212.58.238.153 6 51 ms 52 ms 51 ms 212.58.238.157
7 51 ms 53 ms 51 ms www4.rbsov.bbc.co.uk [212.58.227.74]
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 49 ms 49 ms 49 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69
3 132 ms 349 ms 307 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1] 4 51 ms 51 ms 49 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90
5 66 ms 63 ms 51 ms 212.58.238.153 6 50 ms 53 ms 51 ms 212.58.238.157
7 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms www6.rbsov.bbc.co.uk [212.58.227.76]
Ill do a few traces etc in a sec...im finally at home sitting at my pc! just in time for i28 aswell!, as for how i fixed it...ill copy the post i made at my "Planetside outfit's forums"!
QuoteSorted - kinda,
Basically, the error in the memory is on one stick of DDR400 Dual channel (1GB) - When tested alone, single channel, the error does not show, however when running them together, it does. The error shown is a 4 Bit error on the same address each time. Now, i assumed that this might not matter for the time being, although somethings may and will crash the computer...i dont think planetside and alike will! - why? Basically its down to parity bits. 1 wrong parity bit, then you get your error. But, its 4 error bits, so, the parity bits will cancel each other out - as far as the games concerned its fine, provided that segment of memory is only being read and not written (often, prone to errors) it should be ok.
The error itself is just over 1500mb, so, i dont think planetside will use that much up anyway
QuoteLatest from Tim as promised
Huh, I get nowt ??? Me having tha biggest mouth n`all >:(
;)
Quote from: Jeff on Aug 21, 2006, 23:12:17
QuoteLatest from Tim as promised
Huh, I get nowt ??? Me having tha biggest mouth n`all >:(
;)
It's an extract from the same message you posted this morning on the AG forum (http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=idnet&Number=2626700)...
Keep up lad, keep up ;D
Oh aye, just with Scott getting it today and ... well never mind, bit miffed at not being furnished today as it were. :)
Big fella is back from his hols today ... was online when I came on but soon buggered off ... he knows I`m gonna be on his case about a few things ;)
*Trying to provoke a response from said big fella*
Aye, keep uz reet Bill :laugh:
Quote from: Jeff on Aug 21, 2006, 23:24:39
*Trying to provoke a response from said big fella*
Give the man a chance... I've seen him around on AG, no doubt he's catching up on whatever subversion he thinks we might be planning ;)
Aye, whey, it`s tough at the top ;)
Hi Guys
Two weeks is a hell of a long time! It took me from 08:30 to 23:00 just to read, only reading, emails and forum posts! I was of cross-eyed and crooked-back by the end :)
On the ping-spike thing. We can see it but we don't know what is causing it. We have had Cisco looking into it too and some outside consultants.
We are treating it as high priority even though it only affects ICMP packets. TCP packets are unaffected.
More when we know it.
Cheers
Simon
nice one idnet! :)
Quote from: mrapoc on Aug 22, 2006, 12:47:17
nice one idnet! :)
ergo...everbody STOP bloody pinging telehouse ?!?! :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: Scott on Aug 22, 2006, 12:55:40
Quote from: mrapoc on Aug 22, 2006, 12:47:17
nice one idnet! :)
ergo...everbody STOP bloody pinging telehouse ?!?! :laugh: :laugh:
LOL, there wasn't a really a problem at all; a malicious rival decided to start a rumour to get everyone to ping telehouse to make it look like there was one. :o ;D
D'Oh ! It's a new take on the bot-net DDOS attack ! The DUPE !
Dumb User Ping Exploit
...*runs*...
:-\ lol
Simon if you find the problem is it likely to bring the general ping speeds down?
The reason i ask is my pings are now always over 50ms where they were always 30 - 40ms.
I don't know if i am the only one who has found this.
Quote from: maxping on Aug 22, 2006, 18:09:29
Simon if you find the problem is it likely to bring the general ping speeds down?
The reason i ask is my pings are now always over 50ms where they were always 30 - 40ms.
I don't know if i am the only one who has found this.
Yes, I've found exactly the same thing; my pings, even after being on interleaving (must remember to get that switched off again), were only 25-26ms typically (and 16-17ms before interleaving), but in the last week or so they've increased to around 35ms on average, for no obvious reason.
sit tight guys :) im sure they will fix it
damn connection errors on server >:(
Quote from: maxping on Aug 22, 2006, 18:09:29
Simon if you find the problem is it likely to bring the general ping speeds down?
Let's show a little confidence and make it "...
when you find the problem...", eh? ;D
Apart from the spike, my pings have stayed where they always were:
C:\WINDOWS>tracert idnet.net
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.1.1
2 15 ms 16 ms 14 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms redbus-gw-fa0-0-1003.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 15 ms 15 ms 16 ms idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
My pings are still sticking to the usual 50 with the odd spike.
Tracing route to 212.69.36.10 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 49 ms 50 ms 50 ms 212.69.63.45
3 51 ms 49 ms 49 ms 212.69.40.1
4 49 ms 50 ms 49 ms 212.69.63.1
5 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms 212.69.36.10
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 48 ms 48 ms 49 ms 212.69.63.45
3 364 ms 266 ms 329 ms 212.69.40.1
4 49 ms 50 ms 49 ms 212.69.63.1
5 50 ms 51 ms 49 ms 212.69.36.10
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 50 ms 50 ms 48 ms 212.69.63.45
3 51 ms 50 ms 49 ms 212.69.40.1
4 49 ms 49 ms 50 ms 212.69.63.1
5 49 ms 51 ms 51 ms 212.69.36.10
Its getting to the point now were my friend on plusnet has a lower ping that me on the OC3D server which is hosted by IDNet
Beat this if you can >:(
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of da
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=60
This is strange i was going to turn the router off for the usual 30 mins ,i decided to do another test to check it before i did and its back to normal ???
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=60
Too many people are pinging, bringing the ping server down. ;D
I have just been on a server where i was playing with a ping of 50-60 then suddenly it went over 80 and didn't come down , i left the server.
Is there any news from IDNet ?
This is getting annoying the pings have gone back to the 50's i was getting again.
Is anyone else seeing this pattern of not just ping spikes but pings generally changing for long periods?
Could we not have regular feedback from IDNet even if it was just to say things are still being investigated.
To most users this may seem trivial but many of us use our machines for gaming as much as surfing and for us this is a big deal.
Ive had cr*p pings for nearly 2 weeks and we seem to be no nearer a solution .
For the non ADSL Guide users - http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=idnet&Number=2618723
Hi Guys
We are indeed deep into investigations. We have two independant teams of Cisco consultants evaluating the situation with us. Rather troubling is that neither of them agree that there is a problem and both have conflicting views as to the possible cause of the ping spikes.
The reason why they regard the situation as not being a problem is that the router in question is doing the right thing by treating pings as lowest priority. Bear in mind that game play uses UDP pakets; ICMP (ping) packets are not used for anything other than checking if a host (server or router) is live or not. Using ping to measure network performance is self-defeating due to its low priority rating.
I am not trying to say that the 'ping spikes' are unusual and we are trying to get the bottom of it. We are treating this as high priority even though it does not appear to be affecting most game players. Please check the OC3D forums and see here: http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=idnet&Number=2630158 (http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=idnet&Number=2630158)
If these guys were affected then there would be a deafening clamour!
Maxping, your symptoms of consistently high pings do not line-up with a regular 5 second ping rise each minute. If you could please call Support then we'll run some line checks for you.
Will keep you updated.
Cheers
Simon
I am from OC3D and so is jiffz who i play bf2 with, he also gets ping spikes.
I mean come on my friend on plusnet gets a 24ms ping now
these last couple of weeks i can play for 5 mins to 3 hours without a high ping but when it happens (which it usually does at random) it stays with me, usually resulting in abnormally slow downloads or streaming video (not just talking pings) but at other times it absolutely fine - any1 else feeling this random act of sorrow :'(
Quote from: simon on Aug 23, 2006, 20:55:37
Maxping, your symptoms of consistently high pings do not line-up with a regular 5 second ping rise each minute. If you could please call Support then we'll run some line checks for you.
I will give CS a call but I'm not really getting consistently high pings its up and down like a yoyo but seems to stay high before dropping back.
Must admit I'm a bit confused by the Cisco response. Is the suggestion that the ping spikes may be caused by spikes in TCP or UDP packets, consequently causing delays in the processing of ICMP packets? If so, where are those packets coming from?
If that's not the case, then I fail to see how the fact that the router correctly assigns low priority to ICMP packets means that unrelated ping spikes are in their opinion somehow not a problem. It's like a mechanic telling you the fact that your car is unable to enter 2nd gear isn't really a problem because the steering wheel still works.
nicely put lol
I will phone cs tomorrow as i finish early.
Heres tonights update.
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=249
I too am having problems with pings but i wouldn't descibe them as ping spikes. from 10am to 6pm my ping usually rises to 150ms and during the evenings it is generally ok but will occasionally go back up to 150ms for a minute or so.
I spoke to support and they suggested it was linked to the current ping spike problems but simon seems to suggest in his post these symptoms are not related.
Not sure what to do now :-\
Recently a typical day looks like this ...
PS this is effecting gaming and browsing speeds too so not just ICMP but also UDP and TCP packets
[attachment deleted by admin]
*Edited version below*
Simon phoned me tonight and assured me this ping issue is being investigated . He also suggested phoning Miriam to find out if Interleaving may have been turned on by mistake, this would explain my problem so i will phone tomorrow and keep my fingers crossed.
Latency and Interleaving
(This was news posted a while ago, 2000-05-16 18:11:52 to be exact.)
Written by Justin
For internet telephony or interactive applications such as remote administration over a telnet session, latency is a key (and much discussed) attribute of the connection.
At the moment, the class of users most obsessed with latency would have to be the online gaming community. They are often buy entry level residential ADSL lines, with high download speeds, and are dismayed to read that friends on slower SDSL or IDSL lines are getting better ping times!
The first reaction of a disappointed gamer is to blame the ISP for routing inefficiencies or congestion, and although that is often the root cause, there is more to latency than just many hops and/or long distances.
ADSL modems commonly employ data Interleaving, which is a technique to increase resistance to noise bursts on a line. Interleaving "smears" out micro bits of data (interleaves them over time) so that a short burst of signal destroying noise can only remove part of any given larger block. Data blocks reserve some space for error-correction data.. which can salvage a partially damaged block. Interleaving increases the chance that noise on the line will only cause partial damage, not complete loss. Thats the good news.
The down-side of Interleaving is that it increases latency! this is because your little (say) quake movement packet is smeared out over several packets before it can be fully sent or fully received.
ADSL modems with typical Interleaving defaults can be 10-30ms behind in latency over equivalent speed SDSL modems... this means latency to any point for some ADSL modems can be at best 50ms! On the same setup, the aforementioned SDSL modems that typically add only 10ms. So for use of a nearby server, ADSL Interleaving can be the biggest single source of latency that you have.
Unfortunately, there is little clear information supplied with, or available online, about what latency a given DSL modem or ISP connection has built-in.
Some ADSL modems allow the user to turn off Interleaving, or turn it down to a narrow range, at the expense of possible data-loss on noisy lines. The Cisco 675, for example, has a full operating system inside it, and one of the attributes of the ether interface is Interleaving. See Randy Lutton's US West page). Some ISPs may be delivering this unit with Interleaving on, and some off. In other cases, it is the DSLAM (central office equipment) that has the Interleaving set, and this cannot be changed.
If you want to read more about Latency, then we can recommend this paper by Stuart Cheshire, which was published back in 1996 but is totally relevant now.
That article is 6 years old....things have changed.
It indicates that it's the modem (routers don't seem to get a mention...) that uses interleaving- not so. The DSLAM at the exchange determines this, and your modem or router had better follow suit or else...
Where it acknowledges that the DSLAM may set it on or off, it states that it cannot be changed- rubbish. Though I'll concede that it can't be changed by the user.
It says that there is little information about whether the ISP has turned interleaving on or off- rubbish.
Where did you get that article?
Bill i Googled it, it may be out of date but i was trying to show people how interleaving can cause problems if its switched on.
Could anyone Reading this do us a favour and do a quick ping test.
I'm asking because most non gamers probably never realise how high or low their pings are , i would like to know if its just a few of us that are effected or the majority.
If you have XP hit start/progs/accessories & click on command prompt.
A black box will open and you will see the cursor flashing , type ping -t www.idnet.net and hit enter ,let it run for 30 seconds then tell us the lowest and highest you get.
Thanks in advance.
Lowest 25
Highest 31
Over 4 minutes
my pings are 100% fixed, nice one idnet! :D
Quote from: sobranie on Aug 27, 2006, 11:28:44
Lowest 25
Highest 31
Over 4 minutes
Mine =
Lowest - 47
Highest - 61
Running approx 2 mins.
Quote from: AvengerUK on Aug 27, 2006, 11:40:21
my pings are 100% fixed, nice one idnet! :D
You have a pm ;)
mine =
lowest - 23
highest - 28
average - 24
over 2 mins
richard
Thanks all keep them coming.
Lowest = 43ms
Highest = 72ms
Over about 2 minutes. 2 spikes, one of 65ms, the other 72ms.
At some point I might ask about getting interleaving turned off, since we're playing more online games now...
Thanks Danni,
I was supposed to phone Miriam after work Friday as Simon thought interleaving may have been turned on , i totally forgot - DOH .
After a bit of Googling i found out my router may tell me if its on or off , it does (see below) so it looks like its been turned on for some reason, it must have been off until a couple of weeks ago as my pings were a lot lower than they are now. ???
I'm just happy i can get it turned off and things should go back to normal. ;D
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/adsl.jpg)
Simon check your pm's ;)
A bit more info on the effects of having interleaving turned on for those interested.
The concerns that some of you have raised are that there will be an increase in Lag on the line should interleaving be applied. This is true because the process of buffering the data bits and reordering them can add anything between 5ms and 20ms onto the time. This is also only in one direction, data travel in 2 directions, Tx and Rx. So this will mean that it could realistically add 10ms to 40ms on the round trip time.
It is also important to note that the time is not random it depends on the make of the DSLAM, some manufacturers kit can do this process in a shorter time than others. BT Wholesale does not have one supplier of equipment so we can not say what the effect will be on each line.
Having interleaving on will increase the line stability, there will be less likely hood of dropped connections or slow speeds, but it does increase your response times which gamers may not want.
Pings:
Lowest 25ms
Highest 35ms**
**Every 60-65 seconds 500ms spike
Cheers
--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
90 packets transmitted, 90 received, 0% packet loss, time 89647ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 19.439/28.556/56.080/8.769 ms
would interleaving increase your bandwidth usage much ???
was just thinking if duplicate packets get sent surely your download speeds would decrease and your bandwidth usage would increase ???
or does it not effect things to that extent ???
It wont be effecting mine come Weds ;D
Quote from: equk on Aug 28, 2006, 13:50:48
would interleaving increase your bandwidth usage much ???
was just thinking if duplicate packets get sent surely your download speeds would decrease and your bandwidth usage would increase ???
or does it not effect things to that extent ???
I'd guess that in theory you're right, but if your connection gets that bad, the extra traffic is going to be the least of your worries!
Is there something happening at IDnet I should know about?
My pings have shot up enormously!!
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert idnet.co.uk
Tracing route to idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 135 ms 132 ms 120 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 407 ms 135 ms 120 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 120 ms 127 ms 129 ms redbus-gw-fa0-0-1003.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 111 ms 97 ms 106 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
Just had the same :( playing on quake3, very unstable ping of 50-60 next min it was 150 :( ??? pay for adsl for gaming and end up with this :-X :'(
Ok, so its not just me then. ???
EDIT:
Some ping stats to illustrate:
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 470, Received = 461, Lost = 9 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 106ms, Maximum = 205ms, Average = 143ms
Yeah, today is not to good for me again.
[attachment deleted by admin]
jeeez man i was just playing cs ON A LONDON BASED SERVER and i was getting pings average about 170 and topping 200 :o it was utterely unplayable! Even the foreigners had lower pings around 50-70! While doing a server search the lowest i could find was 145 which is 1 of my favourites where i used to get pings of around 15 :-X
Its strange i either get a way too low ping of like 2-5 or i get a monster of a ping 170+
Try giving customer support a call, as you know for some reason interleaving (*sp) has been activated on my line and my pings are higher than they were.
Its being switched off in the next 24 hours thanks to Miriam.
It would appear that stablility has returned:
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 244, Received = 244, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 97ms, Average = 18ms
Shame that the wife & kids are home now >:( no gaming for me ::)
Must be bad karma man ;)
Has Idnet got a handle on what the problem was? I take it everyone else is ok now?
same, here. About 5.30pm - 5.45pm things are well again. About the same time every day.
If i get back to the low 30's i will be well happy ;D
arrrrgh its still 120+ when i used to have 20 :'( gonna have to call tomorrow for sure
Yes, mines up and down like a yo yo now. 25-120ms.
looks like the whole network is effected now then :( I've been getting it since I've been connected :-[ :-X :'(
hope they sort it out as quick as possible.
server I was on earlier that was pinging 30ms
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.226 ms 0.683 ms 0.650 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 21.082 ms 19.798 ms 24.241 ms
3 * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 21.722 ms 20.313 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 20.193 ms 21.912 ms 19.806 ms
5 lonap.he.net (193.203.5.128) 21.982 ms 23.482 ms *
6 pos2-0.gsr12416.ams.he.net (216.66.24.158) 209.499 ms 175.293 ms 215.596 ms
7 154.41.66.216.in-addr.arpa (216.66.41.154) 131.949 ms 141.957 ms 143.663 ms
8 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 171.871 ms 134.972 ms 147.555 ms
9 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 143.999 ms 135.289 ms *
10 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 159.718 ms 129.592 ms 141.850 ms
has been like that since my last post hours ago :(
equk, it looks like you could have a different problem. Your tracert suggests there is a problem at he.net which is on route to the server you are trying to play on. The latency problems me and some others here are seeing start much sooner at the 1st idnet hop.
You could try contacting he.net support .... support@he.net and highlight the problem with them.
Quote from: mrapoc on Aug 29, 2006, 18:30:36
arrrrgh its still 120+ when i used to have 20 :'( gonna have to call tomorrow for sure
Have you done the "turn it off for 30 mins" trick its worked for me when my pings been very high.
Quote from: philco on Aug 29, 2006, 18:53:03
Your tracert suggests there is a problem at he.net which is on route to the server you are trying to play on.
Try the tace to www.idnet.net
Heres 2 ive just done.
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 47 ms 52 ms 54 ms 212.69.63.45
3 49 ms 49 ms 48 ms 212.69.40.1
4 52 ms 57 ms 50 ms 212.69.63.1
5 62 ms 58 ms 49 ms 212.69.36.10
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 54 ms 51 ms 49 ms 212.69.63.45
3 49 ms 49 ms 49 ms 212.69.40.1
4 52 ms 52 ms 50 ms 212.69.63.1
5 49 ms 49 ms 48 ms 212.69.36.10
Quote from: philco on Aug 29, 2006, 18:53:03
equk, it looks like you could have a different problem. Your tracert suggests there is a problem at he.net which is on route to the server you are trying to play on. The latency problems me and some others here are seeing start much sooner at the 1st idnet hop.
You could try contacting he.net support .... support@he.net and highlight the problem with them.
I thought that myself but my other post got closed and I got told to post in this thread ??? :(
Also the ping seemed to change at the same time as other people. So possibly is an idnet issue, not sure :( but I do know there are people from the uk not having the same problems as loads of peeps I know are on the server pinging 30ms
Quote from: maxping on Aug 29, 2006, 18:56:30
Quote from: philco on Aug 29, 2006, 18:53:03
Your tracert suggests there is a problem at he.net which is on route to the server you are trying to play on.
Try the tace to www.idnet.net
Heres 2 ive just done.
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 47 ms 52 ms 54 ms 212.69.63.45
3 49 ms 49 ms 48 ms 212.69.40.1
4 52 ms 57 ms 50 ms 212.69.63.1
5 62 ms 58 ms 49 ms 212.69.36.10
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 54 ms 51 ms 49 ms 212.69.63.45
3 49 ms 49 ms 49 ms 212.69.40.1
4 52 ms 52 ms 50 ms 212.69.63.1
5 49 ms 49 ms 48 ms 212.69.36.10
here's my trace to idnet
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.313 ms 0.683 ms 0.656 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 21.824 ms 25.708 ms *
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 20.308 ms 21.966 ms 21.950 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 22.046 ms 22.005 ms 22.005 ms
5 * redbus-gw-fa0-0-1003.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 26.744 ms 20.747 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 21.979 ms 22.652 ms 22.058 mscan someone do a traceroute to the ip I posted? just to see ???
from my idnet connection (which btw is back to normal again)
Tracing route to quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 22 ms 26 ms 22 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 23 ms 167 ms 22 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 21 ms 22 ms 22 ms lonap.he.net [193.203.5.128]
5 129 ms 123 ms 123 ms pos2-0.gsr12416.ams.he.net [216.66.24.158]
6 133 ms 137 ms 128 ms 154.41.66.216.in-addr.arpa [216.66.41.154]
7 111 ms 111 ms 111 ms 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.5]
8 125 ms 124 ms 234 ms 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.94]
9 138 ms 129 ms 129 ms quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
from a bt connection ....
Tracing route to quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 12 ms 11 ms 10 ms 217.32.96.250
2 10 ms 14 ms 11 ms 213.123.110.161
3 12 ms 12 ms 11 ms 217.41.176.5
4 11 ms 20 ms 26 ms 217.41.176.118
5 10 ms 18 ms 10 ms 217.41.176.54
6 11 ms 18 ms 10 ms 217.47.73.99
7 10 ms 18 ms 12 ms core1-pos14-3.sheffield.ukcore.bt.net [217.32.17
1.197]
8 13 ms 19 ms 25 ms core1-pos7-0.manchester.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.204.
177]
9 17 ms 18 ms 30 ms core1-pos4-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.204.193]
10 17 ms 19 ms 29 ms core1-pos1-0-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.113]
11 18 ms 19 ms 23 ms ldn-s2-rou-1002.UK.eurorings.net [195.66.224.54]
12 19 ms 20 ms 23 ms ldn-s2-rou-1001.UK.eurorings.net [134.222.231.61]
13 18 ms 19 ms 20 ms 134.222.230.121
14 31 ms 26 ms 27 ms obl-rou-1021.NL.eurorings.net [134.222.231.173]
15 28 ms 30 ms 31 ms asd2-rou-1002.NL.eurorings.net [134.222.231.202]
16 29 ms 177 ms 228 ms asd2-rou-1001.NL.eurorings.net [134.222.231.194]
17 29 ms 28 ms 28 ms asd2-rou-1011.NL.eurorings.net [134.222.231.250]
18 36 ms 36 ms 33 ms 134.222.97.18
19 29 ms 26 ms 27 ms 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.94]
20 27 ms 27 ms 27 ms quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
as you can see, you are just on a bad route to that server. Not much you can do other than contacting he.net and letting them know. They may not be aware there is a problem.
(sry double post. Please delete)
well looking at the he.net site it seems they are in america?
Hurricane Electric
760 Mission Court
Fremont, CA 94539
Quote from: idnet supportGeographic location does not play much of a role in determining how packets
are routed. We will deliver traffic via the shortest path (fewest number of
networks) possible. I can see from your posts that this particular problem
has now resolved itself? Please let me know if this is not the case.
fastest route to the NL is to california in america?
Thats just their head office i expect.
it is in america san jose
IP ADDRESS: 193.203.5.128 (lonap.he.net)
COUNTRY REGION CITY FLAG
UNITED STATES CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE
ARGH!!!! >:(
check here - http://webtools.live2support.com/misc_locate_ip_address.php
so it seems to be a routing issue as I suggested in my original post ::)
Quote from: philco on Aug 29, 2006, 18:10:39
same, here. About 5.30pm - 5.45pm things are well again. About the same time every day.
Are you serious!!, I'm on holiday most of the week, so gamings a lost cause during the day!!!!!!!!!!!!!
inetnum: 193.203.5.0 - 193.203.5.255
netname: LONDON-LONAP
descr: LoNAP Peering Point
descr: London
country: GB
admin-c: AS8330-RIPE
tech-c: AS8330-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PI
mnt-by: AS8330-MNT
mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT
mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered
role: LoNAP Tech contact
address: Telehouse Docklands, London
definitely in london. you wouldn't be pinging 22ms to lonap.he.net if it was in the US.
Quote from: philco on Aug 29, 2006, 20:03:59
inetnum: 193.203.5.0 - 193.203.5.255
netname: LONDON-LONAP
descr: LoNAP Peering Point
descr: London
country: GB
admin-c: AS8330-RIPE
tech-c: AS8330-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PI
mnt-by: AS8330-MNT
mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT
mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered
role: LoNAP Tech contact
address: Telehouse Docklands, London
definitely in london. you wouldn't be pinging 22ms to lonap.he.net if it was in the US.
hmm :)
It's still very strange how it's such a high ping. Also seems to be a routing issue as looking at the BT one it is a lot faster. 26ms in comparison to 130ms? :( still not very happy :'(
it picks up the next one as new york? :(
IP ADDRESS: 216.66.24.158
COUNTRY REGION CITY FLAG
UNITED STATES NEW YORK NEW YORK
I just spoke to simon and he has put my mind as ease, hopefully they will sort routing out :) he also explained about my phone line etc.
Also the site that checks is probably checking the company resistration address.
Hopefully by the time the 10days is over the routing aswell as my connection will be a lot more stable.
Excellent support tho ;D
i think my pings are back to normal for the time being - can some1 give me an ip to ping which they are getting normal pings on?
EQUK here you go.
Tracing route to 194.109.69.93 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 49 ms 49 ms 48 ms 212.69.63.45
3 49 ms 49 ms 49 ms 212.69.40.1
4 48 ms 49 ms 48 ms 193.203.5.128
5 126 ms 127 ms 126 ms 216.66.24.158
6 182 ms 173 ms 178 ms 216.66.41.154
7 169 ms * 174 ms 194.109.5.5
8 186 ms 165 ms 169 ms 194.109.5.94
9 183 ms 177 ms 183 ms 194.109.69.93
QuoteTracing route to quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 55 ms 99 ms 199 ms speedtouch.lan [192.168.1.254]
2 23 ms 23 ms 23 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 23 ms 23 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 25 ms 24 ms 25 ms lonap.he.net [193.203.5.128]
5 81 ms 82 ms 83 ms pos2-0.gsr12416.ams.he.net [216.66.24.158]
6 131 ms 134 ms 124 ms 154.41.66.216.in-addr.arpa [216.66.41.154]
7 132 ms 152 ms 135 ms 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.5]
8 167 ms 150 ms 150 ms 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.94]
9 134 ms 138 ms 130 ms quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
Trace complete.
cool :)
guess that confirms it is a routing problem with idnet
I have done another including the details ;)
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 49 ms 54 ms 58 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 52 ms 51 ms 51 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 62 ms 63 ms 61 ms lonap.he.net [193.203.5.128]
5 144 ms 139 ms 135 ms pos2-0.gsr12416.ams.he.net [216.66.24.158]
6 159 ms 158 ms 182 ms 154.41.66.216.in-addr.arpa [216.66.41.154]
7 299 ms 176 ms 166 ms 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.5]
8 176 ms 171 ms 173 ms 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.94]
9 185 ms 187 ms 186 ms quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
Tracing route to quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 4 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 32 ms 28 ms 29 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 30 ms 32 ms 32 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 31 ms 32 ms 49 ms redbus-gw-fa0-0-1003.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 49 ms 51 ms 48 ms ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net [195.69.144.48]
6 48 ms 51 ms 49 ms 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.5]
7 47 ms 47 ms 54 ms 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.94]
8 46 ms 46 ms 47 ms quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
Trace complete.
yer seems ok atm, from what Simon said last night it seems the network the connection is routed through gets overloaded. Which is why it's ok at certain times of the day.
Still 46ms when it's a good time of the day tho (bit higher than 26-30ms)
Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.227.71]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 * * * Request timed out.
2 104 ms 103 ms 96 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 130 ms 134 ms 142 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 173 ms 174 ms 164 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
5 176 ms 171 ms 184 ms 212.58.238.129
6 147 ms 147 ms 139 ms 212.58.238.141
7 88 ms 90 ms 98 ms www1.rbsov.bbc.co.uk [212.58.227.71]
Trace complete.
I sincerely hope Simon or someone else finds the time to actually post here to let us know exactly what is going on, and more to the point when it's likely to be fixed; those sort of pings at 4pm are not remotely acceptable.
dudez look at this ray of sunshine / hope
(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g258/mrapoc/wow.jpg)
that was at 4:15 today on a file with average seeds (nothing like openoffice) but a normal file which i usually go at the very max to 100KB/s average anyway!
wowee i hope this becomes more frequent
Erm, arent we on about pings her not speed
my ping problem seems to be linked to speed :P
at this time my pings were all normal again so personally this is a breakthrough lol
My speeds drop too when im am suffering from this bad ping problem. It usually starts about 9-10am and returns to normal about 5-6pm. Today has not been too bad though.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Hi karvala
Have you tried turing your router off for 30 mins to see if that clears it?
Simon
Quote from: simon on Aug 30, 2006, 20:18:30
Hi karvala
Have you tried turing your router off for 30 mins to see if that clears it?
Simon
Hi Simon,
Yeah, I've actually rebooted and switched off (usually for about 15 mins) a couple of times today, mainly because I'm waiting for interleaving to be switched off (I'm guessing it's BTW who are dragging their heels on that; supposed to have happened by end of last Friday). The first period off didn't seem to make any difference, the second does seem to have done the job; pings are now in the 30s again, which is what I'd expect. :)
Does this mean the problem is actually fixed, or is there a possibility if/when I reboot again that I'll be back on the slow route? Some clear and comprehensive info on the whole ping situation would be good, to remove uncertainty such as this. ;)
Hi karvala
If I could wave my magic whatsit then I would.
Why some lines are subject to this and not others is unknown just now. That disconnecting for 20/30 mins can fix the problem for some people would point to the 'stale session' problem. However, some people seem to get this condition so often that it doesn't quite fit with being a stale session...
Cheers
Simon
like me - usually at least once a day :-[
what the hell, is still work time & the ident is overloaded?!?
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 146, Received = 144, Lost = 2 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 176ms, Average = 110ms
I know I'm near the end of my 10 day max trial but you cant tell me that this is normal, I cant play clan matches with a conx like this...
I'm getting the same :( holding off until the 10day thing is finished tho.
One thing I do notice tho is the ping to the gateway is 20ms. But on the BT connection posted earlier the gateway is pinging at 10ms ???
Quote from: philcoIDNET
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 22 ms 26 ms 22 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
BT
1 12 ms 11 ms 10 ms 217.32.96.250
not sure why this is.
Anyway I hope the routing gets sorted out with the ping times. :'(
erm.....
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.501 ms 0.940 ms 0.925 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 77.245 ms 92.031 ms 81.919 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 75.892 ms 73.186 ms 71.801 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 70.042 ms 68.423 ms 65.691 ms
I just got kicked of the IDNet OC3D server as my ping was over 100ms
It lasted about 5mins now my ping is about 50
Well im confused , i ve had a email off miriam to tell me interleving is now off my line yet i am still getting the 50+ pings.
My router is still showing it as on ???
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=60
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 = 53ms, Average = 51ms
The routing has changed, but I seem to be getting high ping times. As I'm still on the 10day period I was wandering if someone else could try a traceroute, to compare. My ping times today seem 10ms higher and also unstable :(
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 0.953 ms 0.934 ms 0.906 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 18.689 ms 21.867 ms *
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 19.862 ms 18.469 ms 17.944 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 19.964 ms 18.553 ms 19.972 ms
5 * redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 19.965 ms 20.541 ms
6 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48) 87.881 ms 86.319 ms 66.464 ms
7 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 61.420 ms 70.770 ms 65.711 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 61.863 ms 70.570 ms 73.963 ms
9 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 77.847 ms 91.298 ms 77.899 ms
yes i have been kicked from cs servers and such and all i can say is - restart router and even better leave it off for as long as possible :( rest assured it will be fixed!
I wouldnt agree as by the time you have done that the ping problem still happens
I also can't just disconnect most of the time as my bro is on WoW, it's like taking drugs from a addict :o
But the problem soon comes back even when you do disconnect for 30mins or so. Doesn't seem long before it is back aswell so not sure it's this 'stale connection' people seem to be saying it is. If it was why would so many people be suffering from it most of the time ???
hmm my ping to the gateway is now 30ms :o :-X :-[ 1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.210 ms 0.672 ms 0.649 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 30.308 ms 31.053 ms 30.014 ms
3 * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 31.157 ms 30.362 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 32.042 ms 30.955 ms 37.925 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 32.069 ms 30.743 ms 32.149 msthis is getting stupid :( 10th day today, hopefully it's fixed by monday, or I guess I will be phoning support :'(
I dont beleive it, i really really dont!
My ping problem is BACK again!! - after it went for a day or so....
same as last time in every way.
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
I just tried reconnecting and still pinging 30ms to the gateway ??? something going on at idnet or something ??? :-X :-\
Hi mate can you link to the post?
To be honest i am getting a bit fed up of my minimum 50ms ping , customer support have been helpful chasing BT up who have said interleaving is now off my line yet my ping is the same.
This may seem trivial to most people but a minimum 50ms ping is useless for gaming which is the main reason i got broadband.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed it can be sorted and soon.
I have found a nice little free prog to help if you are testing your connection as much as i am at the moment.
Set the loops to 100 ;)
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Network-Tools/Traceroute-Whois-Tools/Visual-Ping.shtml
Min = 50 ms
Max = 78 ms
Av = 56 ms :'(
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/untitled-1.jpg)
Quote from: maxping on Sep 02, 2006, 13:58:24
Hi mate can you link to the post?
To be honest i am getting a bit fed up of my minimum 50ms ping , customer support have been helpful chasing BT up who have said interleaving is now off my line yet my ping is the same.
This may seem trivial to most people but a minimum 50ms ping is useless for gaming which is the main reason i got broadband.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed it can be sorted and soon.
Is interleaving actually showing off your line, or does it still show in your router? I'm increasingly of the opinion that BTW are actually switching it on without reason (they certainly did in my case) just to decrease the volume of complaints, and leaving it on even when they claim to have switched it off.
Quote
Is interleaving actually showing off your line, or does it still show in your router? I'm increasingly of the opinion that BTW are actually switching it on without reason (they certainly did in my case) just to decrease the volume of complaints, and leaving it on even when they claim to have switched it off.
I took this screen after Miriam sent me a email to say BT had confirmed it was now switched off.
I am no expert on routers but if it was off would it be blank in the space in the pic ???
(http://img328.imageshack.us/img328/9193/routerstatshm6.jpg)
That does indeed mean BT are telling porkies ;)
It would say "Fast path" otherwise!
Note: ill run that program of yours when i get home!!
Thanks Avenger at least i now know that when the BT dip s***s finally get round to switching it off for real things will go back to normal.
Its got me so frustrated ive been up to my mothers house today to run a few pings tests from here pc with Virgin broadband.
She gets a average of 37ms , i came away more frustrated ::)
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 02, 2006, 17:53:28
That does indeed mean BT are telling porkies ;)
It would say "Fast path" otherwise!
Note: ill run that program of yours when i get home!!
Yeah, exactly. Mine said FAST until I once manually rebooted the router; now it says INTERLEAVED, even more than a week after interleaving was alledgedly switched off, in spite of rebooting numerous times, leaving the router powered off overnight, and even doing a full reset. Grrrrrr....
Keep them coming peeps I'm feeling better by the post ;D :D ;)
Ping statistics for www.idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 28ms, Maximum = 31ms, Average = 29ms
Ping statistics for www.multiplay.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 90ms, Average = 30ms
I have run visual ping with the following results:
(if someone can tidy up this barrage of images..ie get them next to each other or something :)!! EDIT: Im AM Clever!!!)
(http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/3630/1ru4.jpg)(http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/6769/3od2.jpg)(http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/2900/4to5.jpg)
I would also like to note my L8NC Graph...which is currently showing periodic loss :(
I hate to say it, but im getting really really fed up. Being a heavy gamer, it just simply wont do.
Ive been with many ISP's, some with similar support (good) but with ping problems. Who, led me around in circles until i left. Ive had ISP's ive been happy with! AOL for instance. Its just a problem which some ISP's have, im not saying these ISP's are "bad" - for "normal" users its fine, 100%! - However, for gamers, its difficult.
Any one have any suggestions? - I mean, should i wait in hope? or move on...
Avenger could you line the picture links up one under another to get rid of the "widescreen" look of the thread,thanks.
I have run quite a few tests using visual ping and i do not seem to be getting many spikes it just seems to fluctuate between 50ms and 60ms, if you are getting huge spikes there must be a problem somewhere.
What have CS said about it?
As you can see below my connection is rock solid .
Pinging www.idnet.net with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:53ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:54ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:53ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:53ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:60
Ping statistics for www.idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 50ms, Maximum = 54ms, Average = 52ms
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 02, 2006, 21:02:40
I would also like to note my L8NC Graph...which is currently showing periodic loss :(
I hate to say it, but im getting really really fed up. Being a heavy gamer, it just simply wont do.
Ive been with many ISP's, some with similar support (good) but with ping problems. Who, led me around in circles until i left. Ive had ISP's ive been happy with! AOL for instance. Its just a problem which some ISP's have, im not saying these ISP's are "bad" - for "normal" users its fine, 100%! - However, for gamers, its difficult.
Any one have any suggestions? - I mean, should i wait in hope? or move on...
I seem to be getting the same, pinging multiplay.co.uk
Seems to ping at 20ms but jumps to 30ms every 5 or so packets.
--- core1.multiplay.co.uk ping statistics ---
42 packets transmitted, 42 received, 0% packet loss, time 41242ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 19.757/21.824/30.547/1.941 msWould be cool if I could get 16ms but the idnet gateway pings at 20+ms so no chance of that :(
ECUK can you remove the quote from your post so when Avenger edits his post we will get back to the narrow forum instead of this wide one its a pain to use.
Hmm, someone did it for me? :)
Anyway, so no one else is getting the results im getting?!
EDIT: As you can see, its again regular & large spikes: http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e
Anyone have any advice? - its killing me! (virtually anyway :P)
well it was my tenth day yesterday and today the ping times are just as bad, was just on a quake3 server which I've always pinged 26-30ms on before(on my previous isp's)
Today seemed to be 50ms+ and some massive pl aswell as ping going up to 150ms, pinging it on ping command gives me a low of 40ms but totally unstable, I'm probably going to contact support, might try the bttest connection to see what results I get there then I guess I will know if it's my line or the ISP :(
I feel mislead by the reviews and results on adslguide as idnet were top, but looking on here everyone is getting ping problems ???
I think max can be a iffy, especially if you have interleave on.
Idnet have or I think still got a ping issue on one of their routers. I'm not sure if it's been resolved yet.
My fixed rate line seems fine and as I don't play online games anymore I'm to fussed.
Can you give me ip address to the server and I will ping it for a few minutes.
The one I was just on - 194.109.69.93
But also have problems to - 85.25.10.49 :-[
--- 85.25.10.49 ping statistics ---
68 packets transmitted, 67 received, 1% packet loss, time 67418ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 39.574/49.573/86.018/10.686 ms
194.109.69.93 seems fine to me with low 30ms pings
Ping statistics for 194.109.69.93:
Packets: Sent = 148, Received = 148, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 31ms, Maximum = 63ms, Average = 33ms
85.25.10.49 not so good ~40ms ping with the odd spike
Ping statistics for 85.25.10.49:
Packets: Sent = 123, Received = 123, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 34ms, Maximum = 90ms, Average = 41ms
QuoteAnyone have any advice? - its killing me! (virtually anyway )
I am also getting spikes but mine probably look worse than they should because they are all starting from 50ms.
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/spikes-----.jpg)
i am still getting ping spikes at my end as well check out the graph this is only for five min
[attachment deleted by admin]
Whats that you are using to test it ?
my latency graph looks like this
[attachment deleted by admin]
pingplotter
If you are using Visual ping you can change the settings at the top to make the pause as long as you want and the loops to whatever you want.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Network-Tools/Traceroute-Whois-Tools/Visual-Ping.shtml
Try 2000 for the pause you get a far more detailed bar at the bottom. (note the 1 big spike)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/ddddddddddddddddd.jpg)
yip you can configure pingplotter quite a bit good piece of kit
Soo..wounder why my pings went ok for a few hours last weekend...then went bad again!
hmm nice traceroute :( 100+ms to the gateway ???
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.223 ms 0.685 ms 0.637 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 125.693 ms 117.281 ms 117.678 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 107.914 ms 98.383 ms 93.925 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 90.003 ms 89.103 ms 83.910 ms
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 0.779 ms 0.668 ms 0.645 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 108.783 ms 93.261 ms 89.976 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 98.240 ms 92.639 ms 87.906 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 91.981 ms 109.195 ms 109.878 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 111.976 ms 103.257 ms 97.914 ms
6 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48) 109.954 ms 99.307 ms 103.829 ms
7 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 118.022 ms 125.129 ms 111.875 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 131.988 ms 127.015 ms 131.923 ms
9 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 109.909 ms 103.716 ms 107.857 mstraceroute to 213.208.119.119 (213.208.119.119), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 0.699 ms 0.671 ms 0.648 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 102.915 ms 105.200 ms 109.977 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 108.048 ms 118.792 ms 127.884 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 115.879 ms 105.198 ms 117.926 ms
5 g2-2-501.cr01.hx2.bb.pipex.net (193.203.5.14) 126.183 ms 119.658 ms 123.440 ms
6 v3952.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.9) 98.425 ms 97.610 ms 115.846 ms
7 g1-1-6.er01.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.140.142) 124.337 ms 113.510 ms 114.001 ms
8 ge-0-0-0-3801.jolt-gw.cust.pipex.net (212.241.241.14) 105.883 ms 93.679 ms 87.892 ms
9 213.208.119.119 (213.208.119.119) 85.629 ms 96.754 ms 101.924 ms
Quote from: equk on Sep 04, 2006, 11:13:23
hmm nice traceroute :( 100+ms to the gateway ???
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.223 ms 0.685 ms 0.637 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 125.693 ms 117.281 ms 117.678 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 107.914 ms 98.383 ms 93.925 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 90.003 ms 89.103 ms 83.910 ms
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 0.779 ms 0.668 ms 0.645 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 108.783 ms 93.261 ms 89.976 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 98.240 ms 92.639 ms 87.906 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 91.981 ms 109.195 ms 109.878 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 111.976 ms 103.257 ms 97.914 ms
6 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48) 109.954 ms 99.307 ms 103.829 ms
7 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 118.022 ms 125.129 ms 111.875 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 131.988 ms 127.015 ms 131.923 ms
9 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 109.909 ms 103.716 ms 107.857 mstraceroute to 213.208.119.119 (213.208.119.119), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 0.699 ms 0.671 ms 0.648 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 102.915 ms 105.200 ms 109.977 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 108.048 ms 118.792 ms 127.884 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 115.879 ms 105.198 ms 117.926 ms
5 g2-2-501.cr01.hx2.bb.pipex.net (193.203.5.14) 126.183 ms 119.658 ms 123.440 ms
6 v3952.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.137.9) 98.425 ms 97.610 ms 115.846 ms
7 g1-1-6.er01.tn5.bb.pipex.net (62.72.140.142) 124.337 ms 113.510 ms 114.001 ms
8 ge-0-0-0-3801.jolt-gw.cust.pipex.net (212.241.241.14) 105.883 ms 93.679 ms 87.892 ms
9 213.208.119.119 (213.208.119.119) 85.629 ms 96.754 ms 101.924 ms
I also had a similar issue, which sorted itself about 1hour ago! - started around 9 Am!
Man, im getting sooo tired of this, its coming to the point where it as bad, or worse than my last ISP - and, in their case it was contention, although i cant see it being that here, or atleast not all the time due to the regular spikes!
EDIT: and its a hell of a lot better early morning!
Pings high this afternoon, Come on i just wanna play a damn game
Pinging www.multiplay.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:233ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:166ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:160ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:91ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:95ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:101ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:134ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:144ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:120ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:123ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:137ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:130ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:161ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:148ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:156ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:138ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:145ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:161ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:157ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:157ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:137ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:136ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:168ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:157ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:128ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:118ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:123ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:140ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:117ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:116ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:107ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:129ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:138ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:129ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:140ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:158ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:139ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:134ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:137ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:163ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:155ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:148ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:134ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:159ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:161ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:156ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:145ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:167ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:160ms TTL:121
Reply from 85.236.96.22 bytes:32 Time:153ms TTL:121
Ping statistics for www.multiplay.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 91ms, Maximum = 233ms, Average = 142ms
WTf
"I'll get someone to phone you back when there back from lunch"
Holy cr*p i am fuming
Quote from: browney on Sep 04, 2006, 13:19:02
WTf
"I'll get someone to phone you back when there back from lunch"
Holy cr*p i am fuming
Your not the only one ;) - I've even started looking for the alternatives!!
Sending ping request to www.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes
Answer from 85.236.96.22 : bytes = 32 time = 27 ms TTL=121
Answer from 85.236.96.22 : bytes = 32 time = 27 ms TTL=121
Answer from 85.236.96.22 : bytes = 32 time = 29 ms TTL=121
Answer from 85.236.96.22 : bytes = 32 time = 27 ms TTL=121
Statistics for 85.236.96.22
Packets : sent = 4, received = 4, lost = 0 (loss 0%)
Approximative elapsed time in milliseconds
Minimum = 27 ms, Maximum = 29 ms, Average = 28 ms
10 seconds later and........
Ping statistics for www.multiplay.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 43ms, Maximum = 117ms, Average = 77ms
Now when they phone what do i say damn this is a pain in the arse i really dont wanna leave but they are taking far to long to sort this out!
I've emailed support about the ping times and also my conn - speedtest=1700k
I tried the BT SPEEDTEST and it came back with 1700k (despite syncing at 4000k) also so must be my line, altho the BT gateway was pinging 16ms and the lowest I've seen the idnet one is 20ms.
Hopefully idnet's support will prevail :) was the main reason for going with them
I feel the same, don't want to leave but it is taking a long time for these ping issues to be sorted. At night time after 12am the ping times seem more stable so as AvengerUK says it's almost as if it's something to do with contention or network load? altho even then the pings are 10-20ms more than they should be.
Was on a server last night pinging 50-120ms and someone I know on talktalk was on at 38-40ms lol :o ???
EQUK i feel you buddy
So i'm not the only one getting low syncs
lol still pinging gateway at 100ms and it's only 2:30pm
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.210 ms 0.678 ms 0.654 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 98.889 ms 110.725 ms 115.877 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 123.989 ms 129.839 ms 135.838 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 130.120 ms 147.225 ms 139.854 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 146.040 ms 144.008 ms 147.928 ms
6 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48) 181.911 ms 184.442 ms 190.116 ms
7 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 177.694 ms 170.060 ms 187.807 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 175.909 ms 180.039 ms 179.868 ms
9 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 195.917 ms 167.951 ms 170.083 ms
ah yer forgot to post - this is my ping on bttest connection:--- 217.41.220.142 ping statistics ---
220 packets transmitted, 220 received, 0% packet loss, time 219980ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.230/16.927/22.633/0.781 ms
avg 16ms to the gateway
my pings dont seem to be as bad now - ive prolly just jynxed it! but i do get slightly slower speeds and loading of websites (think mininova.org)
hmm maybe support has a day off today or something :( not had a reply to my email, anyone get through on the phone ???
really dissapointed ::) I know I have problems with my line but these ping issues are just stupid, when I was with F2S and they had ping problems it was no-where near as bad as this and that was when they were waiting for a pipe upgrade.
ive emailed simon and he said they are still investigating:
"We're getting conflicting reports from customers: some, like you, are
witnessing a problem while other avid gamers are saying that nothing is
wrong and no change from normal. It makes it all a bit tricky to make sense
of. Does it help you at all if you power-down your router for half an hour.
Does doing that make any difference? I would be very interested to hear to
experiences."
Seems they are still trying to find it - rest assured they will i hope :angel:
The whole
Does it help you at all if you power-down your router for half an hour
thing is getting silly really, already as said above it makes no difference, if it does sort out the ping it's for a very small amount of time :(
not sure how any "avid gamers" wouldn't notice the ping times altho it depends on what games you play, people playing world of warcraft for example probably wouldn't notice the ping increase.
I just spoke to Simon and it seems BT haven't set the Maximum Stable Rate (MSR) for my line yet and so I cannot open a fault with them yet :(
He did suggest trying a different modem/router as the two I've tried have the same chipset. So I'm hopefully going to steal/borrow the netgear one from the office to try.
Looking back over this thread, there does seem to be a considerable degree of confusion in this problem. Things I personally would like to see from the tech team for purpose of clarity:-
(1) A clear statement of what they believe the symptoms are. I say this because there seem to be at least two different issues covered in this thread (one of consistently high ping times to the gateway for periods of time, and one of the 65s spikes on a particular router). Are these two problems believed to be related?
(2) A request for what type of information users can give to aid troubleshooting, if any is needed.
(3) A detailed statement as to what is being done in terms of investigating the problems. At the moment, there's an impression that it amounts to the tech team, and a couple of teams of Cisco engineers of dubious merit judging from their previous response, sitting around scratching their heads and feeling confused. I'm sure this an unfair portrayal, so details of what's actually happening might go some way towards allaying that impression.
(4) Working hypotheses, i.e. a list of all possible explanations for the symptoms of the respective problems as they're seen so far, and information associated with them. For example, stale sessions has been offered as one explanation of the gateway ping problem, but doesn't quite fit. There must be a number of others.
After they get back from lunch, of course.... ;) :D :P
Hmmm,
I really dont know what to think, or do. The thing is, the last ISP i was with had almost the same problem, which they couldent sort, and blamed it on my line (my line is fine btw!). Their support was also very highly rated, and they did seem very knowlegdable. They kept me going for a month, with differnet excuses, and were doing this, getting that, etc - so, i really dont know wether i can trust what IDnet says, it may be true - they may be trying there best, but from past experiances even with the best support from a ISP - you just cant know for sure.
As for alternative options - well, well and truly stuck their!
As you can see, http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e - its seriously killing my gaming.
If money is left out of the equation, does anyone have any advice on a ISP that will suit my gaming needs? i cant really wait much longer!
Well as you can see from my previous posts in this thread i was suffering from bad ping times during the day and slower speeds. I did a bt speed test and checked my pings while logged into the bt speed test domain and they came back fine so no problem with my exchange.
The pattern seemed to show that weekends were fine but monday tuesday and wednesday (aboout 10am - 6pm) were very bad (150ms) and thurdsday/friday (10am - 6pm) not as bad but still not very good.
Over the weekend i had to disconnect my router for a while to move some cables and i don't seem to have had any more problems with ping today, although it would seem other people are. Could it be that one of the BT central pipes supplying idnet has a fault or is contended and that is why some people are seeing the problem while others (on a good pipe) seem to be fine. It would make sense as when you disconnect for half on hour your session is reset and you are re-allocated to a new pipe. Just a stab in the dark.
As for the ping spikes, yes i am still seeing these at all times of the day and yes they are effecting gaming (UDP packets). Not sure if the two problems are connected.
Karma for you sir for that informative post, nice detective work
i seem to have the same symptoms as you and yes at times its fine but others my ping wooshes up to 100 more than my friend on talktalk
my latency graph has been really bad this afternoon not been up to anything either
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=0b903a11129d2cdad0bc29c1d166926c&sid=872479bcaa97fb93d38a4d438afa287a&day=today
Quote from: Ronnie on Sep 04, 2006, 18:36:34
my latency graph has been really bad this afternoon not been up to anything either
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=0b903a11129d2cdad0bc29c1d166926c&sid=872479bcaa97fb93d38a4d438afa287a&day=today
looking at that graph, that's basically what mine was like at those same times :(
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=96307777502f5166e07114b8f3aa8872
- if only i could see that flatness myself!, a possible alternative though, if Idnet's problem isnt sorted soon :/
Quote from: equk on Sep 04, 2006, 19:14:34
Quote from: Ronnie on Sep 04, 2006, 18:36:34
my latency graph has been really bad this afternoon not been up to anything either
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=0b903a11129d2cdad0bc29c1d166926c&sid=872479bcaa97fb93d38a4d438afa287a&day=today
looking at that graph, that's basically what mine was like at those same times :(
funny my brother is with idnet and his looks the same to it cant be and exchange thing he is at the other end of the country i have sent a email into support with both graphs
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 04, 2006, 19:28:51
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=96307777502f5166e07114b8f3aa8872
- if only i could see that flatness myself!, a possible alternative though, if Idnet's problem isnt sorted soon :/
are you sure enta.net is not just for buisness
As you all know my ping problems have been caused by BT turning on then not turning off interleaving on my line (again its still on tonight ) :(
Can i ask what help and advice you have been given by support over the ping spikes e.t.c.
Quote from: Ronnie on Sep 04, 2006, 19:40:55
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 04, 2006, 19:28:51
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=96307777502f5166e07114b8f3aa8872
- if only i could see that flatness myself!, a possible alternative though, if Idnet's problem isnt sorted soon :/
are you sure enta.net is not just for buisness
Enta is the provider, however several companys resell from them. One of the most popular is UKFSN.org. Good support & prices, and they use enta's network !
All comments/problems are under Enta though @ ADSLGuide, same for ratings.
thanks avengeruk
Just been talking to simon about the ping problems,
- Basically im going to try my differnt routers, and see if they make any difference to the problem. - ill post back late tomorrow night/wednesday with some short-term results, could be interesting ;)
(Reason is BT tested different chipsets, and found up to 2mbit differences, and some produced ping problems.
I have a Safecom 4114 to test, and Safecom SART2-4115 to test and a USR-9003 (which i dont think will work!) )
*edited*
surely loads of routers aren't buggered? i only got mine under a year ago :-\
I admit, its unlikly in my opinion, but im totally open to any and all suggestions/things to try!!
I have tried my other routers before for stability, all i know is they both sync ALOT lower than my SART2-4115, but we shall see - about to try the 4114
So if you have been using a certain router for ages and then suddenly things go t**s up with the pings its down to the router ???
I have a trust modem/router its been fine for ages and now (forgetting my interleaving problem for a moment) i like a lot of users here have noticed the ping spikes.
For those who have never seen the graph before the green line marks the average ping and its approx 50ms the blue lines show the spikes(ignore the numbers in the column to the right as the 20 would be 100ms and the 40 = 200ms).
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-1.jpg)
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 04, 2006, 21:38:15
I admit, its unlikly in my opinion, but im totally open to any and all suggestions/things to try!!
I gave my old speedtouch 330 usb a try but it made no difference , it also didnt make it any worse ???
does ne 1 know if this is isolated to max only or other packages? also are other isps getting the same problems?
Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 04, 2006, 21:43:48
does ne 1 know if this is isolated to max only or other packages? also are other isps getting the same problems?
No idea, no idea! - i know of some ISP's with similar problems, but by no means the majoritory of them
Well my connections hit a new all time low, trying to have a couple of games tonight and the pings were all over the place its become a total joke. >:(
Its bad enough playing with a ping of 50+ but when its shooting up into the 70's its a waste of time. >:(
To make matters worse I find it difficult to contact customer support through the daytime so rely on this forum for my information.
Simon if you read this can you leave some feedback its turning into a joke , look at my graph below .
Key (pinging per second)
### RED ### Packet loss (percentage)
### YELOW ### Minimum response time (in milliseconds)
### GREEN ### Average response time (in milliseconds)
### BLUE ### Maximum response time (in milliseconds)
Key (pinging per minute)
### RED ### Packet loss (percentage
### BLUE ### Response time (in milliseconds)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq.jpg)
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 04, 2006, 21:20:21
(Reason is BT tested different chipsets, and found up to 2mbit differences, and some produced ping problems.
I have a Safecom 4114 to test, and Safecom SART2-4115 to test and a USR-9003 (which i dont think will work!) )
We also had a long chat about this
Simon even got the guys at OC3D to try a few games out and seen no big problems its a hell of a problem to track down as not every one is seeing the same problem
I have tried a safecom-4114 and a origo ASR-8100 here which both have same chipsets :( the origo seems to give marginally better pings so I'm using that atm.
Just playing quake3 and the ping was more stable 40-50ms but still seeing jumps to 130ms. The jumps were like someone was using my connection. Was just thinking maybe there's a reason they(bt) don't put a contention ratio on maxdsl lines? ie-put on as many as they like ???
possibly also why BT seem to be pushing it on to people, loads of ISPs only seem to have maxdsl on their sites now ???
Well I can confirm that I'm not seeing these symptoms and I'm on IPStream 500.
No MAX for me but that may or may not help !
Hi Maxping
We are chasing BT to get Interleaving disabled on your line for you (you should have received an email from Miriam yesterday). Will let you know when we hear from BT though I expect you may know when it is done before we do!
Cheers
Simon
Thanks for keeping tabs on this thread Simon...it's a hot one for many in here - not least those most directly affected !
Fellow IDNet FanBoys/Girls:
In lieu of a expected fix date (which I'm certain Simon, Tim and the engineers working their behalf are desperately working toward) unless you have a revelatory insight or some change in symptoms on your line lets try and keep this post on-topic and (as much as is humanly possible - I know people are pissed off !) moan-free.
This isn't a Mod cracking the :whip: more that we have a great relationship with our guys in IDNet - let's help them get things back to normal by letting them focus on the important stuff and not sidetrack 'em !
You can be sure when they know something - we'll know something !
I've been re-graded to the 2mb fixed service :)
I've just done a speedtest and it seems even slower than it was on max :(
http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=1157453461&v=400388
Download Speed: 1684 kbps (210.5 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 232 kbps (29 KB/sec transfer rate)
on the BT tester - 1501 kilo bits per second (Kbps)
QuoteBT would regard the speed ranges shown below as normal service:
For 250kbps End Users speeds between 50 - 250kbps.
For 500kbps End Users speeds between 100 - 500kbps.
For 1000kbps End Users speeds between 200 - 1000kbps.
For 2000kbps End Users speeds between 400 - 2000kbps.
On ping times - seems just as bad, if not worse ???
115ms to the gatewaytraceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.223 ms 0.681 ms 0.644 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 119.628 ms 115.205 ms 111.993 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 115.979 ms 128.091 ms 171.840 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 138.281 ms 137.015 ms 140.043 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 138.112 ms 138.597 ms 143.875 ms
6 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48) 143.952 ms 133.021 ms 230.072 ms
7 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 117.667 ms 184.925 ms 139.892 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 145.962 ms 190.986 ms 179.582 ms
9 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 179.895 ms 156.255 ms 136.168 msalso - nice stability?
Quotetraceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 0.678 ms 0.668 ms 0.651 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 24.036 ms 32.562 ms 36.039 ms
3 * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 89.689 ms 84.546 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 72.201 ms 84.327 ms 75.851 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 279.809 ms 272.496 ms 267.626 ms
Morning! - im about to post my results with the different modems, just finishing with my USR one now (which i think has destroyed my profile...crawling @ 500kb/s lol)
Right, first of all, the safecom SART2-4115:
Sync speed: 2228kb/s down, 448kb/s up - stable.
I tested using l8nc and just pinging several locations. Pings spiked, and sometimes remained high, seen in l8nc graph.
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8573/1gk3.jpg)
Next, the Safecom 4114:
Sync speed: 1666 down, 448 up - stable
(http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/5306/2up7.jpg)
:(
Currently im using the USR 9003, which is a pain! - however, i cant post a graph for another hour or so (not enough data) - but, currently, EVERYTHING pings over 100ms, and rebooting the router/leaving it off for a bit doesent help. "Wuhoo"
not sure it's modem/router issues tho, as 3 of us had the same ping results at the same times, pretty sure we have different routers, but are still getting the same results? ???
I'm not really sure whether to buy a new router or not. My Safecom-4114 and my Origo both sync at the same rate.
I also had no problems at all with either of them at my other house.
Also I'm only 1.95km away from my exchange so not sure how I have 50db of noise on the line ???
I think safecom (4114) and origo's both use Connexant chipsets, as origo firmwares can be used on safecom routers!
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 05, 2006, 12:43:35
I think safecom (4114) and origo's both use Connexant chipsets, as origo firmwares can be used on safecom routers!
yer I tried different firmwares. The safecom doesn't have enough flash mem for some firmwares tho.
ATM I'm running billion firmware on the origo which seems to be ok, slight decrease in ping times.
Quote from: equk on Sep 05, 2006, 00:28:40
I have tried a safecom-4114 and a origo ASR-8100 here which both have same chipsets :( the origo seems to give marginally better pings so I'm using that atm.
I agree with this:
Quote from: maxping on Sep 04, 2006, 21:40:18
So if you have been using a certain router for ages and then suddenly things go t**s up with the pings its down to the router ???
the idea of blaming routers/modems seems a bit like passing the buck on BTs behlalf
Quote from: simon on Sep 05, 2006, 09:01:58
Hi Maxping
We are chasing BT to get Interleaving disabled on your line for you (you should have received an email from Miriam yesterday). Will let you know when we hear from BT though I expect you may know when it is done before we do!
Cheers
Simon
Can mine be done at the same time please? It was also not switched off two weeks ago when the modify order was submitted, and I sent an e-mail to Miriam last week asking for it to be done again, which I'm disappointed to say has not even received a reply.
Quote from: equk on Sep 05, 2006, 12:42:27
Also I'm only 1.95km away from my exchange so not sure how I have 50db of noise on the line ???
Just remember distance <> line length...BT recommends a 1.4 factor on distance as a VERY rough guide to line length but that's a real 'finger in the air' assumption. You could be on a heck of a lot longer line length than that, not to mention material differences like Cu pairs to Al pairs + repairs etc etc >:(
Quote from: Scott on Sep 05, 2006, 13:20:24
Quote from: equk on Sep 05, 2006, 12:42:27
Also I'm only 1.95km away from my exchange so not sure how I have 50db of noise on the line ???
Just remember distance <> line length...BT recommends a 1.4 factor on distance as a VERY rough guide to line length but that's a real 'finger in the air' assumption. You could be on a heck of a lot longer line length than that, not to mention material differences like Cu pairs to Al pairs + repairs etc etc >:(
prob lots of repairs then knowing bt :D
or should tht be bodges ??? :angel:
Appology to my previous post...its not my l8nc graph - its ronnies! i bookmarked the wrong one lol
*Deleted*
ping seems to have gone down now, altho doesn't seem very stable, has been at 130+ since this morning :(. So that's at least 5hours at 130ms+.
Currently pinging the gateway at 35ms!? ???
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.201 ms 0.672 ms 0.637 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 35.669 ms 31.611 ms 32.009 ms
3 * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 89.608 ms 88.333 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 82.322 ms 90.435 ms 81.954 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 68.065 ms 53.421 ms 58.295 ms
6 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48) 73.700 ms 53.043 ms 53.928 ms
7 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 52.058 ms 120.949 ms 49.117 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 44.841 ms 47.171 ms 49.941 ms
9 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 43.990 ms 45.394 ms 45.875 ms
omg gone up to 80ms to gateway again now :(
WTF is going on, this is just stupid, might aswell be on a modem connection, would probably be more stable.
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 0.683 ms 0.681 ms 0.641 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 80.337 ms 92.086 ms 82.047 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 89.982 ms 90.616 ms 91.934 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 99.898 ms 120.199 ms 97.787 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 99.904 ms 94.087 ms 93.912 ms
6 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48) 127.890 ms 146.172 ms 147.910 ms
7 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 155.846 ms 162.268 ms 168.615 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 150.820 ms 146.134 ms 129.865 ms
9 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 129.831 ms 138.138 ms 141.875 ms
Quote from: equk on Sep 05, 2006, 15:38:56
omg gone up to 80ms to gateway again now :(
WTF is going on, this is just stupid, might aswell be on a modem connection, would probably be more stable.
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 0.683 ms 0.681 ms 0.641 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 80.337 ms 92.086 ms 82.047 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 89.982 ms 90.616 ms 91.934 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 99.898 ms 120.199 ms 97.787 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 99.904 ms 94.087 ms 93.912 ms
6 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48) 127.890 ms 146.172 ms 147.910 ms
7 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 155.846 ms 162.268 ms 168.615 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 150.820 ms 146.134 ms 129.865 ms
9 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 129.831 ms 138.138 ms 141.875 ms
lol - i still await a reply, but my connection is doing just the same as yours - extremely annoying :)
I guess we know about current ping problems:
It's not only the maxadsl service as I'm on the 2mb fixed service and am still getting the same.
It doesn't seem to be a line fault as many people are getting the same problems at the same times of day
It doesn't seem to be a router problem as various people use various routers.(maybe we could compile a list? might not be of any help tho)
Routers of people with problems:
Safecom SAMR-4114 - Chipset : Conexant (CX82310-14) - equk & AvengerUK
Origo ASR-8100 Chipset : Conexant (CX82310) - equk
Safecom SART2-4115 - Chipset: TNETD7300 - AvengerUK
USR 9003 - 6480/6482 Eagle ADSL Chipset - AvengerUK
Solwise sar110 - Viking 2 chipset - philco
speedtouch 580 - Thomson/Alcatel chipset - mrapoc
Trust GB445A - maxping
Netgear DG834G - Chipset: TI Ar7 (MIPS 4KEc) - I think I've seen someone post who has this
Netgear DG834PN - I think I've seen someone post who has this
speedtouch 330 - USB Modem - maxping
Linksys ADSL2MUE modem - GlobeSpan Chipset - Danni
Not sure what can be done next?
Solwise sar110
Well theres a couple of things we can do:
(oh and u missed two of my routers lol - SAMR 4114 and USR 9003)
- Wait for the issue to be solved
- Put up with it
- leave
speedtouch 580
my latency graph today
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=0b903a11129d2cdad0bc29c1d166926c&sid=872479bcaa97fb93d38a4d438afa287a&day=today
and my pinplotter graph to idnet from my computer they are nearly mirroring again
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: simon on Sep 05, 2006, 09:01:58
We are chasing BT to get Interleaving disabled on your line for you (you should have received an email from Miriam yesterday). Will let you know when we hear from BT though I expect you may know when it is done before we do!
Thanks Simon , i didn't get a email yesterday from Miriam but i have one tonight saying see is doing battle with BT over this.
It makes me wonder how many other BT customers have had interleaving turned on without their consent or knowledge.
EQUK you have my modem listed as a 330 speedtouch which is a usb modem not a router, i use a Trust GB445A Speedlink modem/router. ;)
Quote from: maxping on Sep 05, 2006, 18:22:53
Quote from: simon on Sep 05, 2006, 09:01:58
We are chasing BT to get Interleaving disabled on your line for you (you should have received an email from Miriam yesterday). Will let you know when we hear from BT though I expect you may know when it is done before we do!
Thanks Simon , i didn't get a email yesterday from Miriam but i have one tonight saying see is doing battle with BT over this.
It makes me wonder how many other BT customers have had interleaving turned on without their consent or knowledge.
A huge number, I suspect. They turned mine on without any reason whatsoever (never once lost sync except through manual reboots, SNR never below 9dB at any point), and have so far lied about turning it off again. >:(
Update:
Just been on the phone again, basically there suprised that i get the speeds that i get - and that i should be getting lots of CRC errors ::)
But towards the ping situation, simon is currently looking for a router which they (IDnet) know is "good" - so that i can test this with my line, and rule this out as a possible issue ??? ???
---------------
Oh, and does anyone know if line length can possibly be a factor in pings? - I dont think so somehow, (apart from a few ms) - and CRC errors would mean packetloss?
I was thinking of buying a Netgear DG834G/DG834 as they seem very popular atm, also have had good reviews. But I thought someone with problems in this thread was using one, so not so sure.
Bit overkill for half-bridge/DMZ mode also and I already have a WIFI AP
If interleaving was ur problem do tell!!
also it seems to always boil down to beee teee, i can just see it happening again!
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 05, 2006, 18:45:57
But towards the ping situation, simon is currently looking for a router which they (IDnet) know is "good" - so that i can test this with my line, and rule this out as a possible issue ??? ???
Avenger have you ever got decent pings?
I have and i didn't get the spikes so its only something thats happened recently , we all started posting about it around the same time.
We all use different routers & modems (i have both and both give the same results) so how can it be our routers thats causing this?
I may be wrong but it seems a bit far fetched and if they did find the magic one are we All supposed to go out and buy another router when the ones we have have been working fine for ages?
For me it seems my problems have been since BT in their wisdom turned interleaving on so I'm hoping when its turned off again my rock steady connection will return.
I still can't see it's the routers myself :(
I guess anythings possible but as has been said the pings on the routers were ok. My routers have been fine for ages, also we all have different routers with different chipsets and are experiencing the same ping problems at the same time of day. Sounds to me there's got to be something with the idnet side as that seems to be the only thing in common we all have.
It's been an interesting day here, bb wise...
Went out to the MetroCentre this morning, and got back at 2.30pm to frequent disconnections, timeouts and pings above 200ms to the gateway. Partner rang IDNet and they said they'd ring back. 10 minutes later bb was back to normal (normal speeds, stable connection with 40ms pings except every 65s where it jumps). About 20 minutes after that Miriam rang back, partner gave up trying to tell her what was going on and passed phone to me (ARG!!! Anxiety attack time!). By that time I'd checked my router logs, and there were 15 disconnections between 2.10pm (when we were out) and 2.39pm. We've got no idea what caused this, but I've got instructions from Miriam to ring her back immediately it happens again, and if we can't get hold of her to instruct whoever it is to run a line test.
With everything back to normal here (apart from the 65s ping thing that we're used to now, and we're just not playing any online games) we're puzzled by what happened, but we're both pleased by the service (I just wish Johny would stop passing the phone to me when it comes to IDNet :P).
BTW: We have a Linksys ADSL2MUE modem connected to a Belkin Pre-N router (that controls the connection). Due to the weird setup we have it's not easy to just swap routers around. We've always had ~40ms pings since interleaving was turned on at the beginning of ADSL Max. It's hard to find out the sync speed (because of the way our router and modem are set up) but it's normally about 6 or 7mb.
Its fine at time, slightly bad at others and utterly unplayable at others :-\
WaAaAAaAAaaAAaAaa
I dont want to rub it in the faces of people experiencing problems but i havn't been experiencing any issues with my pings on IDNet MAX at all.
I use my line pretty much exclusively for gaming and i tend to be one of those people that moans about 'hit boxes' and 'registration' when my ping tips above 25ms.
My pings are as good today as they were when i joined IDNet over a year ago, and i'm still getting the consistent 7-15ms pings i did when i was on a non-MAX package.
It seems really wierd that some people are getting this problem and others not, which personally would lead me to believe that it was something outside of the realms of IDNet (but then i'm no expert).
I know this kind of thing can be really frustrating (i'd have no hair left if i couldnt game every night), but as its already been said - and i'm sure we all already know - the guys at IDnet are going to get to the bottom of it asap.
XMS could you run l8nc here http://www.l8nc.com/l8nc.php and paste the results for a couple of hours?
Quote from: maxping on Sep 05, 2006, 20:55:35
XMS could you run l8nc here http://www.l8nc.com/l8nc.php and paste the results for a couple of hours?
Just registered - but i'm guessing i need to set my router not to drop pings?
Quote from: xms on Sep 05, 2006, 21:17:42
Quote from: maxping on Sep 05, 2006, 20:55:35
XMS could you run l8nc here http://www.l8nc.com/l8nc.php and paste the results for a couple of hours?
Just registered - but i'm guessing i need to set my router not to drop pings?
Yup. It'll certainly be very helpful when you do this, as personally I have some doubts about this reverse ping as a method of diagnosing forward ping problems based on my own empirical tests, but it would be good to see more hard evidence one way or the other. :)
that you xms off oc3d?
Quote from: xms on Sep 05, 2006, 20:52:16My pings are as good today as they were when i joined IDNet over a year ago, and i'm still getting the consistent 7-15ms pings i did when i was on a non-MAX package.
7ms ping to a server would be amazing on adsl, most people only get 14-16ms to their gateway address ???
I used to get 15ms to jolt back when nildram were good but I've never seen anyone on adsl get 7ms :)
What ping do you get to the gateway? :o
Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 05, 2006, 20:31:04
Its fine at time, slightly bad at others and utterly unplayable at others :-\
WaAaAAaAAaaAAaAaa
Hmmmm, it is indeed a very strange problem! Some people dont have anything, some people have it occasionally, some have it constantly! - What a headache!
atm ping seems a lot lower, still unstable but here is a traceroute (23:00)
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.293 ms 0.698 ms 0.660 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 23.731 ms 21.754 ms 23.975 ms
3 * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 22.002 ms 20.796 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 22.035 ms 22.655 ms 25.568 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 26.335 ms 22.084 ms *
6 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48) 40.124 ms 40.001 ms 39.974 ms
7 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 48.126 ms 39.984 ms 39.911 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 40.053 ms 39.894 ms 37.924 ms
9 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 39.994 ms * 50.579 ms
still higher than expected but a lot different from 130+ms
strange how it's ok certain times of the day ???
Quote from: equk on Sep 05, 2006, 23:02:53
strange how it's ok certain times of the day ???
Using Virtual ping i get the results below - Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 60ms, Average = 51ms
Only 1 big hop to 60ms then most 50 - 55 yet the l8nc graph shows big blue spikes,to be honest i am not bothering with it anymore i don't think its reliable.
I will stick to the xp command prompt to trace or use Virtual ping.
I don't seem to be seeing the big lag spikes others are seeing.(bear in mind i cannot get a ping below 50ms because of interleaving) so i would say at the moment my connection is fairly stable.
Pinging 217.146.93.36 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:48ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:56ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:53ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:53ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:48ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:60ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:56ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:48ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:53ms TTL:123
Ping statistics for 217.146.93.36 :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 60ms, Average = 51ms
here's some images of ingame ping graphs:
(http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/40plusnet.jpg)Plusnet stable @ 40ms (http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/40plusnet.jpg)
(http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/130idnet.jpg)IDNet 130ms unstable (http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/130idnet.jpg)
(http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/130to50idnet.jpg)IDNet raise from 50 to 130 unstable (http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/130to50idnet.jpg)
(http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/all.jpg)
all to the same server on same setup, same router etc. Massive Difference
hmm are img tags not working? :(
Quote from: equk on Sep 05, 2006, 23:19:51
all to the same server on same setup, same router etc. Massive Difference
Whats the ip i will give it a try?
Quote from: maxping on Sep 05, 2006, 23:22:26
Quote from: equk on Sep 05, 2006, 23:19:51
all to the same server on same setup, same router etc. Massive Difference
Whats the ip i will give it a try?
194.109.69.93:27960
quake3 3wave ctfs
Tracing route to quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 4 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 29 ms 28 ms 29 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 31 ms 29 ms 29 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 31 ms 32 ms 31 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 46 ms 46 ms 46 ms ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net [195.69.144.48]
6 47 ms 106 ms 47 ms 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.5]
7 48 ms 46 ms 47 ms 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.94]
8 48 ms 46 ms 47 ms quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
Trace complete.
Pinging 194.109.69.93 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 194.109.69.93: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=248
Reply from 194.109.69.93: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=248
Reply from 194.109.69.93: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=248
Reply from 194.109.69.93: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=248
Ping statistics for 194.109.69.93:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 48ms, Average = 46ms
Its put 15ms onto my average so not as bad as i had expected.
Pinging 194.109.69.93 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:66ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:66ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:67ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:65ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:65ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:65ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:66ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:65ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:66ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:65ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:66ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:66ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:67ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:66ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:68ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:65ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:67ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:69ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:71ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:66ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:66ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:64ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:70ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:65ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:65ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:72ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:67ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:64ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:65ms TTL:248
Reply from 194.109.69.93 bytes:32 Time:65ms TTL:248
Ping statistics for 194.109.69.93 :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 64ms, Maximum = 72ms, Average = 66ms
Tracing route to core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 4 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 28 ms 28 ms 28 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 31 ms 28 ms 30 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 48 ms 212 ms 214 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 30 ms 29 ms 30 ms redbus-sov3.core.enta.net [84.45.193.206]
6 30 ms 32 ms 33 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
7 29 ms 30 ms 29 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Steven Brown>tracert www.multiplay.co.uk
Tracing route to core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 4 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 29 ms 29 ms 28 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 153 ms 214 ms 209 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 31 ms 29 ms 30 ms redbus-sov3.core.enta.net [84.45.193.206]
6 30 ms 29 ms 31 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
7 31 ms 30 ms 30 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
Any one else see who IDNet should cut out? ::)
traceroute to core1.multiplay.co.uk (85.236.96.22), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.374 ms 0.697 ms 0.669 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 22.802 ms 23.782 ms *
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 23.154 ms 23.291 ms 22.061 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 23.981 ms 22.015 ms 23.816 ms
5 * lonap2.enta.net (193.203.5.135) 22.598 ms 22.725 ms
6 redbus-sov3.core.enta.net (84.45.193.206) 22.057 ms 22.388 ms 22.024 ms
7 gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net (84.45.252.122) 171.934 ms 24.434 ms 23.883 ms
8 www1.multiplay.co.uk (85.236.96.22) 23.978 ms 22.584 ms *
hmm bit of a spike there 171ms!? :) from 20 that's a big leap
hmm fastest speed test so far (it is 01:34 tho)
http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=1157502684&v=402944
Date of Speed Test: 2006-09-06 01:31:24
Download Speed: 1865 kbps (233.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 237 kbps (29.6 KB/sec transfer rate)
seems a bit better I guess :) still shame about these ping problems :(
Quote from: karvala on Sep 05, 2006, 21:46:01
Quote from: xms on Sep 05, 2006, 21:17:42
Quote from: maxping on Sep 05, 2006, 20:55:35
XMS could you run l8nc here http://www.l8nc.com/l8nc.php and paste the results for a couple of hours?
Just registered - but i'm guessing i need to set my router not to drop pings?
Yup. It'll certainly be very helpful when you do this, as personally I have some doubts about this reverse ping as a method of diagnosing forward ping problems based on my own empirical tests, but it would be good to see more hard evidence one way or the other. :)
Here ya go...
(http://upload.overclock3d.net/get.php?id=923)
and....
Tracing route to www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.254.254
2 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 10 ms 11 ms 11 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 10 ms 10 ms 11 ms redbus-sov3.core.enta.net [84.45.193.206]
6 10 ms 10 ms 11 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
7 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
Quote from: xms on Sep 06, 2006, 08:27:09
Quote from: karvala on Sep 05, 2006, 21:46:01
Quote from: xms on Sep 05, 2006, 21:17:42
Quote from: maxping on Sep 05, 2006, 20:55:35
XMS could you run l8nc here http://www.l8nc.com/l8nc.php and paste the results for a couple of hours?
Just registered - but i'm guessing i need to set my router not to drop pings?
Yup. It'll certainly be very helpful when you do this, as personally I have some doubts about this reverse ping as a method of diagnosing forward ping problems based on my own empirical tests, but it would be good to see more hard evidence one way or the other. :)
Here ya go...
(http://upload.overclock3d.net/get.php?id=923)
and....
Tracing route to www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.254.254
2 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 10 ms 11 ms 11 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 10 ms 10 ms 11 ms redbus-sov3.core.enta.net [84.45.193.206]
6 10 ms 10 ms 11 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
7 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
so you to have the ping spikes :( - my graph is almost the same as that aswell, it simply cant be our routers that cause the issue. I have to say that im unsure why simon thinks this could be the case, along with bringing the poor (very poor) line stats etc into the equation - when evedently many users have the problem!, it has me slightly worried!
What i don't get tho is how this is affecting some peoples gaming and not others.
To me, ICMP ping doesnt really mean anything. I get consistently low pings in Counter Strike, and as i said earlier - i'm REALLY critical of lag when playing in game.
I even go as far as to keep the in-game net graph open to monitor for loss etc - and have never noticed anything out of the ordinary.
I do agree that its highly unlikely to be a router issue - as mine has been problem free for over 2 years.
It really depends on what games you play. CSS wouldent mind the ping spikes as much as other games (Usually whose net code is not aswell written) - For example, Joint operations is hard to play when a spike occurs - and you cirtianally cant hit anything! - the same is true for games such as "Halo" and "Freelancer".
- However with me, its not just the ping spikes that cause a headache, theres also the constant high pings that occur randomly and stay for a few hours :(
hmm seems to be back up to 145ms to the gateway again now, last night seemed to be a lot better altho still unstable. Seems like times of the day when the net is not busy ping times are ok (altho still unstable) ???
I signed up for l8nc yesterday but my account still says awaiting administrator approval or something ??? :-[
traceroute to core1.multiplay.co.uk (85.236.96.22), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.281 ms 0.657 ms 0.676 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 145.254 ms 137.174 ms 155.872 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 169.948 ms 174.515 ms 167.778 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 166.057 ms 132.993 ms 123.822 ms
5 lonap2.enta.net (193.203.5.135) 141.963 ms 113.010 ms 115.913 ms
6 redbus-sov3.core.enta.net (84.45.193.206) 113.930 ms 118.733 ms 107.848 ms
7 gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net (84.45.252.122) 100.078 ms 116.770 ms 119.895 ms
8 www1.multiplay.co.uk (85.236.96.22) 107.969 ms 107.184 ms 105.789 ms
tbh this is a waste of time, a 56k modem connection would be more stable.
also altho idnet seem willing and phone you back etc, has anyone seen anything done about this problem?
so far the response we've had is "it's your router, try another" well we've tried a total of 9 routers (7 different chipsets) and 2 modems (both with different chipsets also). So is it us who are wrong?
also on connecting to the bttest/btspeedtest connection ping times to the gateway are 16ms in the day, the pings to the idnet gateway are 100+ms (at the same time of the day). Still a router issue?
It has to be something common to us all, the only thing there (to our knowledge) seems to be idnet. Even the people who say they don't have problems, on using ping graphs are shown a number of spikes also a lot of the traceroutes have spikes from 20ms to 100+ms (even people who "don't have a problem").
Maybe there are 2 seperate problems but it still needs to be sorted. No-one will be able to play online FPS games at 130-200ms ping times. I don't think it's that bad to expect better. The cost isn't the cheapest and the expectations are high due to the reviews etc on adslguide but appart from the odd phonecall there's nothing to back this up as the actual product we're paying for isn't being provided at the standard expected.
It is almost as if it's a throughput problem as people have said, as at times of the day when you'd expect it not to be busy the ping times are suddenly better ??? co-incidence?
I really can't believe it's still not been sorted and am annoyed that the customers hardware is getting blamed for the problems. Has something changed suddenly to cause router/modem incompatability?
QuoteInsert Quote
tbh this is a waste of time, a 56k modem connection would be more stable.
/agree - 200ms constant ping is better than a 20-30ms unstable one! Consistancy is the key!
Quotealso altho idnet seem willing and phone you back etc, has anyone seen anything done about this problem?
so far the response we've had is "it's your router, try another" well we've tried a total of 9 routers (7 different chipsets) and 2 modems (both with different chipsets also). So is it us who are wrong?
the problem has apparently been and is being looked into - thats all as far as im aware
Quoteactual product we're paying for isn't being provided at the standard expected.
Unfourtunatly they are providing the product specified - there is no standards for pings!
QuoteI really can't believe it's still not been sorted and am annoyed that the customers hardware is getting blamed for the problems. Has something changed suddenly to cause router/modem incompatability?
Not as im aware, but it is indeed worrying that customers hardware is being looked into....
equk
Quote from: equk on Sep 06, 2006, 11:45:23
also altho idnet seem willing and phone you back etc, has anyone seen anything done about this problem?
Although I don't find this a problem as I don't play games I do see the problem. I sense there is a growing feeling that whilst everybody believes that IDnet is doing all they can to resolve the issue there is a lack of on going communication regarding this here from them. Whilst nothing may have changed regarding a solution, a regular update would allay fears that the issue may have been forgotten or moved down the order of priorities. I for one would hate this forum to be populated with the meaningless and inaccurate status reports that are synonymous with IP's such as Plusnet, but perhaps an update once a week would help?
Regards
Doug
i have just done a reverse tracert from giganews
news.giganews.com
1 gw-vlan201.dca.giganews.com (216.196.98.1) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
2 g3-16.gw2.dca.giganews.com (216.196.96.61) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
3 217-6-48-249.vhost.placenetwork.de (217.6.48.249) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
4 linx-gw12.LON.GB.net.DTAG.DE (62.154.15.154) 73 ms 73 ms 73 ms
5 62.156.139.142 (62.156.139.142) 74 ms 74 ms 74 ms
6 sl-gw21-lon-1-1.sprintlink.net (213.206.128.102) 74 ms 74 ms 74 ms
7 idnet-b-1.arbinet.net (213.232.65.101) 73 ms 73 ms 73 ms
8 telehouse-bb-gw5.idnet.net (212.69.40.11) 73 ms 74 ms 73 ms
9 * * *
10 * * *
11 * * *
Max number of unresponsive hops reached (firewall or filter?)
news-europe.giganews.com
1 216-196-110-3.ams.giganews.com (216.196.110.3) 1 ms 0 ms 0 ms
2 ams-ix-gw.idnet.net.uk (195.69.144.141) 16 ms 15 ms 15 ms
3 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.2) 16 ms 18 ms 16 ms
4 telehouse-bb-gw5.idnet.net (212.69.40.11) 15 ms 16 ms 16 ms
5 * * *
6 * * *
7 * * *
Max number of unresponsive hops reached (firewall or filter?)
but going the other way it is on 300 hundred mark
richard
here's my traceroute of giganews:
traceroute to news.giganews.com (216.196.109.144), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.274 ms 0.658 ms 0.637 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 138.213 ms 126.184 ms 127.920 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 123.864 ms 130.659 ms 139.763 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 145.726 ms 152.255 ms 153.898 ms
5 ge2-2.fr1.lon.llnw.net (193.203.5.68) 168.005 ms 166.741 ms 149.915 ms
6 ag1-16-1.ar1.lon.llnw.net (68.142.84.238) 153.947 ms 150.903 ms 155.802 ms
7 agg1-15-2-4xoc48.ar1.ams.llnw.net (69.28.172.90) 169.974 ms 160.968 ms 151.684 ms
8 tge6-2.fr1.ams.llnw.net (69.28.172.85) 156.145 ms 165.321 ms 155.228 ms
9 giganews.ve212.fr1.ams.llnw.net (87.248.196.14) 165.960 ms 184.749 ms 165.854 ms
10 * * *
Quote from: equk on Sep 06, 2006, 15:44:36
here's my traceroute of giganews:
traceroute to news.giganews.com (216.196.109.144), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.274 ms 0.658 ms 0.637 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 138.213 ms 126.184 ms 127.920 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 123.864 ms 130.659 ms 139.763 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 145.726 ms 152.255 ms 153.898 ms
5 ge2-2.fr1.lon.llnw.net (193.203.5.68) 168.005 ms 166.741 ms 149.915 ms
6 ag1-16-1.ar1.lon.llnw.net (68.142.84.238) 153.947 ms 150.903 ms 155.802 ms
7 agg1-15-2-4xoc48.ar1.ams.llnw.net (69.28.172.90) 169.974 ms 160.968 ms 151.684 ms
8 tge6-2.fr1.ams.llnw.net (69.28.172.85) 156.145 ms 165.321 ms 155.228 ms
9 giganews.ve212.fr1.ams.llnw.net (87.248.196.14) 165.960 ms 184.749 ms 165.854 ms
10 * * *
Ouch!
imo this could be down to max, anyone on 2mbps getting this problem?
Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 06, 2006, 16:28:35
imo this could be down to max, anyone on 2mbps getting this problem?
Yes...EQUK!!!
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e - Oh god...here we go again ffs!
Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 06, 2006, 16:28:35
imo this could be down to max, anyone on 2mbps getting this problem?
I was hoping it was a MAX problem but I guess it's not as I'm on 2mb fixed now and it's just the same.
Downstream Upstream
SNR Margin 12.4 28.0 dB
Line Attenuation52.4 30.5 dB
Data Rate 2272 288 kbps
Latency FAST FAST However on the fixed service I at least don't get the disconnects I was getting on max. Shame about the ping times :-[
Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 06, 2006, 16:28:35
imo this could be down to max, anyone on 2mbps getting this problem?
Hey leave me out of it ;D
Interleaving still on but pings fairly stable here .
Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:54ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:53ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:62ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:55ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:53ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:249
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 49ms, Maximum = 62ms, Average = 51ms
My connection is having frequent disconnects, and it's nothing to do with sitting on the stairs as it's quieter here :P
Spoke to Simon before, and he's asked me to monitor it for a bit longer, before they go yell at BT. We've already got interleaving on, but are currently synced at 7mb.
Current pinging situation (to gateway):
Quotedanni@Luciana:~$ ping 212.69.63.45
PING 212.69.63.45 (212.69.63.45) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=1 ttl=254 time=43.9 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=2 ttl=254 time=197 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=3 ttl=254 time=92.6 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=4 ttl=254 time=43.9 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=5 ttl=254 time=137 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=6 ttl=254 time=461 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=7 ttl=254 time=54.4 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=8 ttl=254 time=132 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=9 ttl=254 time=170 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=10 ttl=254 time=453 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=11 ttl=254 time=264 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=12 ttl=254 time=448 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=13 ttl=254 time=563 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=14 ttl=254 time=625 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=15 ttl=254 time=683 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=16 ttl=254 time=588 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=17 ttl=254 time=470 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=18 ttl=254 time=516 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=19 ttl=254 time=432 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=20 ttl=254 time=459 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.63.45: icmp_seq=22 ttl=254 time=481 ms
--- 212.69.63.45 ping statistics ---
23 packets transmitted, 21 received, 8% packet loss, time 22073ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 43.991/348.730/683.163/206.634 ms
danni@Luciana:~$
Last disconnect:
QuoteWed Sep 6 17:34:27 2006 -WAN PPPoE disconnected
Wed Sep 6 17:34:27 2006 -WAN : PADT sent
Wed Sep 6 17:35:27 2006 -WAN : PADI sent
Wed Sep 6 17:35:27 2006 -WAN : PADO received
Wed Sep 6 17:35:27 2006 -WAN : PADR sent
Wed Sep 6 17:35:28 2006 -WAN : PADS received
Wed Sep 6 17:35:37 2006 -WAN PPPoE connected
Hummm....
I have had no problems for 2 days now i'm well happy
Been reading a little on people getting 1.8mb on max within the 10day period
QuoteSounds like a stuck BRAS profile, leave it alone for the remainder of the 10 day initial line training, and if after the 11th day you're still getting 1.8Mbps downloads, contact your ISP to get BT to unstick it.
speedtest someone got after doing this: link (http://www.adslguide.org.uk/tools/speedchart.asp?id=115711080513533812975)
Sounds possibly like what I was getting when I was on adslmax.
quake3 netgraph is mostly red today :( 100+ms and a mental amount of packetloss :-X :-\
still waiting for my l8nc account to become active :( will be able to post a link then, showing the stupid ping times :-[ :-X
Any one else had a complete loss of BB???!! >:( :-X
Was ok @ 5pm then I return at 8pm and nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, I've only just got back on ffs.
WTF IS GOING ON ???
No problems here
Internet is fine (up), but the pings are now rising almost every 10seconds :(
Really? no problems here
I lost all BB this morning for 2+ hours.
Switched off router in the end and went shopping. When I got back, switched on and all OK.
Such is the power of shopping at TESCOS ;D ;D ;D
I think its time for idnet to shout at bt or at least give us some more frequent updates
i can see a lot of people leaving over this - which would be bad for idnet and my social well being on idnetters
Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 06, 2006, 21:29:07
I think its time for idnet to shout at bt or at least give us some more frequent updates
i can see a lot of people leaving over this - which would be bad for idnet and my social well being on idnetters
Who's to say its BT? ;) - updates would be nice though, but its not looking for good for us gamers at present.
I think we need info on the ongoing problem. A lot of us are totally unhappy with the service. I've emailed Simon asking exactly what's happening. It seems the community here are helping eachother with testing, analysis and problems more than CS.
I'm pretty sure unless people actually see something happening, they WILL leave.
The whole "it's your router" thing hasn't really helped their case so far either.
I do think in certain cases there is more than one problem tho.
Ok there it goes again, well I spose I have had it back for a whole hour, must share it around for other users :P
hmm atm ping times don't seem as bad as they were in the day ???
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.233 ms 0.681 ms 0.670 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 21.207 ms 24.943 ms 21.190 ms
3 * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 25.112 ms 29.566 ms
4 telehouse-gw.idnet.net (212.69.40.1) 22.064 ms 23.899 ms 22.048 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 27.972 ms 22.186 ms *
6 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48) 39.474 ms 137.770 ms 39.979 ms
7 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 39.983 ms 233.932 ms 39.894 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 40.042 ms 62.086 ms 49.895 ms
9 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 49.898 ms 39.948 ms 41.964 ms
--- 194.109.69.93 ping statistics ---
92 packets transmitted, 92 received, 0% packet loss, time 91563ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 36.722/43.607/131.579/13.916 ms
still spiking to 130ms but I guess at least the gateway is below 100ms
Hmmm,
Ive decided to run a few tests to IDnet IP's (my own & there site) using "PingPlotter" - Im running it from one of my servers located on a differnt network, the ping times will be around 1ms to the idnet site but should show any spikes.
Ill edit and upload the results once theve completed.
note: Whats "Jttr" and why is it important? Jttr is short for "Jitter" - Jitter is a number that represents how stable the latency responses have been. A low jitter number is usually an idication of a good, stable conncetion. High jitter can mean poor response times, poor voice quality (for VOIP) and other connection problems.
In the below graphs - RED means its high!
Note: to those waiting for results, the ones to customer lines show a very very obvious issue.
Here they are:
IDnet site:
(http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/3772/1qa1.jpg)
Shown by the red lined box - the jitter here is quite bad - and jumps every 20seconds!! - Arbinet.net shows the most problems...a whois check shows that arbinet.net are a USA based company "Abrinet-TheXchange Inc".
My line:
(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/1959/2le2.jpg)
Again, Aribnet hop shows the most jitter- and the spikes are recorded underneath!
Note: all blacked out sections are either the servers IP range or my home IP address - security reasons
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 06, 2006, 21:59:44
In the below graphs - RED means its high!
What graph?
Paintiance! - Its almost done!
*DONE ABOVE*
Avenger i changed the graph colours in options and set them 0-50 , 51 - 10 , 101 on.
We seem to be having problems with hop 4.
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/xxxxxxxx.png)
Quote from: maxping on Sep 07, 2006, 00:24:44
Avenger i changed the graph colours in options and set them 0-50 , 51 - 10 , 101 on.
We seem to be having problems with hop 4.
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/xxxxxxxx.png)
That problem is only with that route though - thing is that it happens for almost every route?? - and i know that Enta users dont have the problems we are getting anyway!
Note: There's been some work on the network this morning (ADSLGuide "problems" post, IDnet forum) - anyone notice any change in pings!?
Looking at my l8nc graph, downtime was for me around 6:10, once it came back, spikes were evedent for an hour...but currently my graph is totally flat
EDIT: Stable pings for almost 2 hours...could this be the end? :o ;D
Another EDIT: Spoke to soon.....just after 2 hours of almost flatness, the spikes return. >:( >:( >:(
Any else notice this breif period? First time since the problems began!
hmm pings today:
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.288 ms 0.711 ms 0.718 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 21.210 ms 25.638 ms 20.013 ms
3 * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 23.582 ms 21.140 ms
4 212.69.63.9 (212.69.63.9) 235.923 ms 284.404 ms 293.875 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 26.546 ms 21.747 ms 25.985 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 22.002 ms 28.095 ms 23.242 ms
Similar to last night, still spiking at 300ms tho. Probably won't be able to test any further today tho as I'm off to do some CAD work for someone :(
Im not sure what IDnet are doing, but the problem seems to be *ALMOST* sorted, for me atleast.
L8NC Graph: http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e
Have you noticed on hop 3 that it now just has the ip
here's some results on a F2S (pipex) connection :o
Tracing route to quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 23 ms 26 ms 23 ms l1.ar11.hx4.bb.pipex.net [194.106.38.251]
3 23 ms 23 ms 24 ms g1-2-0.cr10.hx4.bb.pipex.net [194.106.38.153]
4 24 ms 23 ms 53 ms pc1.cr05.hx2.bb.pipex.net [62.72.143.13]
5 23 ms 21 ms 23 ms g1-2.cr01.hx2.bb.pipex.net [62.72.143.37]
6 32 ms 32 ms 31 ms ge4-1-0-1000M.ar1.AMS1.gblx.net [195.69.144.80]
7 30 ms 31 ms 31 ms XS4ALL.so-7-0-0.nar1.AMS1.gblx.net [146.82.33.178]
8 32 ms 35 ms 33 ms 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.5]
9 39 ms 32 ms 33 ms 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.94]
10 33 ms 33 ms 32 ms quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
Trace complete.
Lower and more stable than idnet lol ???
Quote from: browney on Sep 07, 2006, 12:24:38
Have you noticed on hop 3 that it now just has the ip
hop 4 actually ;)
maybe for you
anyone also noticed "telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)" seems to be doubled ???
strange :)
just logged into l8nc but still says - Status: Test awaiting approval by administrator :( xms signed up the same day and got resuts straight away ???
I'm going to run some more tests when i get home tonight. But yet again i seem to be unaffected game wise. Both UT2k4 and CSS are lag free for me.
I also played a CSS match last night with a couple of guys also on idnet - they didnt get any ping issues either :/
well, my ping issues are next to gone...which is extremely weird. Can anyone from IDnet comment?
Still abysmal for me , just logged into wow with a 488ms ping =/ , tried a trace to bbc.co.uk ........ like i said on Adslguide , this is only a problem during the day after 6 pm its 30 ms max for me =/
Pinging www.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.84] with 32 bytes of data
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=249
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.84:
Packets: Sent = 28, Received = 28, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 65ms, Maximum = 160ms, Average = 120ms
Control-C
^C
QuoteHi Steven
That interface was only enabled this morning and we have only just added the
reverse-DNS for it.
Cheers
Simon
This really does get stranger and stranger! - I mean, how can i, who's had the problem since it began, today see a 95% improvment in pings, while other users remain the same?! It makes NO sense!
Well its an idnet prob i just tried the bttest server to make sure its not my exchange which is showing green uncongested anyway & got
Pinging 217.47.73.142 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Ping statistics for 217.47.73.142:
Packets: Sent = 24, Received = 24, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 11ms
Control-C
^C
Yeh - its cirtianally an idnet problem. The fact that mine have sorted themselves out...(95%) seems promising. As ive just said on ADSLguide, ive emailed simon asking as to why - ill post back here and @ ag once i get a reply!
Well I have no clue whats going on , I just retested after you said yours had improved & mine are also back to being fine, 116 ms in wow when i just logged in which for wow is about right & the ping results I just got back are also v good with no more 170 ms pings to the first idnet router, lets hope it stays this way.
Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.227.75] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=248
Ping statistics for 212.58.227.75:
Packets: Sent = 17, Received = 17, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 47ms, Average = 30ms
Control-C
^C
I should add that the only thing i did after i got the earlier abysmal results was log the router on to the bt test for a ping test there to see if was my exchange, not sure why that would fix it but thats the only thing that I did.
Well thats all it takes to reset your session and connect you to a different pipe. I experienced bad pings during weekdays for a few of weeks but since i disconected my router for a while at the weekend, this week has been fine for me while others are still having problems.
My theory about it being pot luck if you are allocated to a bad pipe or not is looking more likely.
http://www.idnetters.idnet.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=450.msg4963#msg4963
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: equk on Sep 07, 2006, 12:27:03
here's some results on a F2S (pipex) connection :o
Lower and more stable than idnet lol ???
Not for me.....
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert quake3-04.xs4all.nl
Tracing route to quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.254.254
2 10 ms 10 ms 9 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 19 ms 15 ms 13 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 26 ms 28 ms 28 ms ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net [195.69.144.48]
6 34 ms 27 ms 26 ms 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.5]
7 33 ms 28 ms 27 ms 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.94]
8 36 ms 28 ms 29 ms quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
Trace complete.
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.226 ms 0.670 ms 0.659 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 23.034 ms 22.415 ms 21.989 ms
3 * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 22.545 ms 21.807 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 22.067 ms 22.557 ms 23.920 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 22.086 ms 24.671 ms *
6 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48) 72.607 ms 39.020 ms 39.547 ms
7 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 44.128 ms 48.478 ms 43.925 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 68.027 ms 66.505 ms 57.973 ms
9 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 66.109 ms 40.424 ms *
Seems atm the ping times are at least below 100ms, still getting some massive spikes.
PING 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=62.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=84.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=75.5 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=40.8 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=42.0 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=6 ttl=247 time=39.3 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=7 ttl=247 time=40.5 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=8 ttl=247 time=77.8 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=9 ttl=247 time=45.1 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=10 ttl=247 time=38.3 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=11 ttl=247 time=41.9 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=12 ttl=247 time=66.8 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=13 ttl=247 time=42.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=14 ttl=247 time=85.4 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=15 ttl=247 time=70.9 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=16 ttl=247 time=42.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=17 ttl=247 time=43.1 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=18 ttl=247 time=44.4 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=19 ttl=247 time=61.7 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=20 ttl=247 time=47.0 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=21 ttl=247 time=76.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=22 ttl=247 time=81.5 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=23 ttl=247 time=88.7 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=24 ttl=247 time=62.0 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=25 ttl=247 time=39.3 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=26 ttl=247 time=78.5 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=27 ttl=247 time=43.8 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=28 ttl=247 time=59.1 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=29 ttl=247 time=64.3 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=30 ttl=247 time=39.9 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=31 ttl=247 time=66.8 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=32 ttl=247 time=40.1 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=33 ttl=247 time=45.4 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=34 ttl=247 time=38.6 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=35 ttl=247 time=59.9 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=36 ttl=247 time=91.1 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=37 ttl=247 time=50.3 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=38 ttl=247 time=87.6 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=39 ttl=247 time=91.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=40 ttl=247 time=92.1 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=41 ttl=247 time=69.4 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=42 ttl=247 time=40.7 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=43 ttl=247 time=88.0 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=44 ttl=247 time=41.6 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=45 ttl=247 time=68.5 ms
--- 194.109.69.93 ping statistics ---
45 packets transmitted, 45 received, 0% packet loss, time 44282ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 38.367/59.964/92.160/18.505 ms
average of 60ms to NL ?
Guess we're getting closer to fixing problems as at least the ping is below 100ms.
Some of the results people have posted in this thread seem very unrealistic considering the current stats of ADSL. I know some people are thinking the same due to PMs I have recieved this week.
constant 75ms ingame ping :( people from uk on the server at 38-40ms (other people are pinging it at 30ms like the pipex traceroute above)
(http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/q3idnet.jpg)
http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/q3idnet.jpg
for comparison - plusnet:
(http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/40plusnet.jpg)
http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/40plusnet.jpg
I am giving up posting here until interleaving is turned off.
The ping pics i am showing do not give a fair picture of my connection and may put newcomers off.
Well now I've been trying a few more servers it seems atm my connection to a lot of servers is fine and also perfectly stable.
I'm thinking the ping spikes and pl are caused by routing to certain servers. Here are a few examples.
Good Stable NL ingame times: 38ms-45ms :
traceroute to 131.211.172.111 (131.211.172.111), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.222 ms 0.674 ms 0.635 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 21.545 ms 21.846 ms 23.810 ms
3 * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 22.867 ms 25.035 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 23.182 ms 21.549 ms 23.933 ms
5 g-s-1.lon1.arbinet.net (213.232.64.51) 24.058 ms 29.556 ms *
6 sl-bb22-lon-9-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.128.104) 22.938 ms 23.429 ms 21.971 ms
7 sl-bb20-lon-12-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.128.52) 28.034 ms 23.529 ms 31.868 ms
8 213.206.131.26 (213.206.131.26) 24.050 ms 23.269 ms *
9 so1-0-0-2488M.ar1.AMS1.gblx.net (67.17.65.242) 32.950 ms 35.010 ms 43.979 ms
10 SURFnet-3.ge-3-2-0.nar1.AMS1.gblx.net (208.49.224.22) 32.316 ms GigaSurf-Amsterdam.ge-2-1-0.ar1.AMS1.gblx.net (208.49.125.50) 33.117 ms SURFnet-3.ge-3-2-0.nar1.AMS1.gblx.net (208.49.224.22) 31.050 ms
11 AF-500.XSR01.Amsterdam1A.surf.net (145.145.80.9) 32.585 ms 33.010 ms 34.178 ms
12 uu-router.Customer.surf.net (145.145.16.162) 35.875 ms 32.982 ms 33.959 ms
13 * sw-binnenstad.net.uu.nl (131.211.0.67) 34.351 ms 34.797 ms
14 * linux-jasper.vet.uu.nl (131.211.172.111) 32.485 ms 34.809 ms
Some laggy very unstable servers (avg ingame ping is 85 with packet loss aswell as spikes): (co-incidently main used)
traceroute to 85.25.10.49 (85.25.10.49), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.276 ms 0.980 ms 0.884 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 24.111 ms 22.425 ms *
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 20.997 ms 22.545 ms 21.979 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 31.994 ms 24.419 ms 21.885 ms
5 * redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 23.298 ms 23.334 ms
6 AMS-IX.AMS-1-eth010-101.nl.lambdanet.net (195.69.144.212) 46.042 ms 39.119 ms 53.902 ms
7 DUS-2-pos700.de.lambdanet.net (82.197.128.29) 42.158 ms 43.337 ms 52.014 ms
8 DUS1-5029.de.lambdanet.net (217.71.104.30) 124.698 ms 142.822 ms 51.934 ms
9 kilo020.server4you.de (85.25.10.49) 56.152 ms 61.223 ms 55.956 ms
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 0.699 ms 0.700 ms 0.675 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 22.354 ms 19.931 ms *
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 22.534 ms 22.531 ms 23.964 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 21.976 ms 22.399 ms 20.171 ms
5 * redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 22.684 ms 24.480 ms
6 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48) 42.063 ms 46.484 ms 86.246 ms
7 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5) 38.382 ms 38.740 ms 83.910 ms
8 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94) 50.036 ms 56.429 ms 39.887 ms
9 quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93) 53.991 ms * 40.620 ms
seems to be getting better my end
Getting better my end, and has been all day since 9. Im becomming a happy IDnetter once again!
...i just hope i dont have to eat those words!
Quote from: maxping on Sep 07, 2006, 19:34:09
I am giving up posting here until interleaving is turned off.
The ping pics i am showing do not give a fair picture of my connection and may put newcomers off.
Yes, likewise. My pings are averaging around 40ms even to the first hop at present; it's hard to know whether this constitutes a real problem, or is simply the effect of interleaving (although yesterday they were averaging more like 25ms, so it's not entirely clear). I'll wait until interleaving has finally and genuinely been removed before looking further at the pings, assuming that the removal happens promptly.
Much better here today- only 3 disconnects, one at 1.16am, one at 2.29pm and one at 8.12pm. Pings are back down to their normal ~40ms (interleaving on) except around the disconnect times, where they go up above 100ms. Will check again in the morning and then email Simon to tell him what's going on here.
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e&sid=&day=today
Perfect!
I hope anyone else left with the issue gets it sorted soon :)
That's a nice clean line Auk :0)
All appendages crossed we're out the woods on this eh ? :laugh:
Quote from: Scott on Sep 08, 2006, 11:37:42
That's a nice clean line Auk :0)
All appendages crossed we're out the woods on this eh ? :laugh:
So crossed that there in danger of getting tangled ;)
well didn't take long for the ping problems to come back :(
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.287 ms 0.672 ms 0.643 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 163.647 ms 156.786 ms 146.032 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 135.976 ms 109.073 ms 97.822 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 98.264 ms 109.266 ms 129.833 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 130.054 ms 148.330 ms 147.908 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 161.821 ms 166.220 ms 153.836 ms
pinging 160ms to the gateway again now?
was perfectly ok yesterday/last night :( this is getting annoying
Perhaps IPStream services are still getting the effects? My line is still pinging normally :-\
Mine were huge before:
danni@Luciana:~$ ping idnet.net
PING 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=60 time=618 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=632 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=622 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=640 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=698 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=618 ms
Also at the gateway:
danni@Luciana:~$ traceroute idnet.net
traceroute to idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 0.445 ms 0.510 ms 0.350 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 845.021 ms 785.477 ms 652.570 ms
3 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 674.457 ms 700.977 ms 698.486 ms
4 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 685.093 ms 666.866 ms 705.932 ms
5 * * *
6 * * *
Ouch?! - Out of pure interest, has anyone else seen a change in their ping times besides me? (A change for the better)
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 08, 2006, 13:02:23
Ouch?! - Out of pure interest, has anyone else seen a change in their ping times besides me? (A change for the better)
I did yesterday, was even stable. Seemed ok this morning aswell, this seems to have just happened :(
Quote from: Danni on Sep 08, 2006, 13:01:12
Mine were huge before:
danni@Luciana:~$ ping idnet.net
PING 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=60 time=618 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=632 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=622 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=640 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=698 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=618 ms
Also at the gateway:
danni@Luciana:~$ traceroute idnet.net
traceroute to idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 0.445 ms 0.510 ms 0.350 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 845.021 ms 785.477 ms 652.570 ms
3 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 674.457 ms 700.977 ms 698.486 ms
4 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 685.093 ms 666.866 ms 705.932 ms
5 * * *
6 * * *
I guess it's not just me then, so hopefully it's nothing to do with my line.
lol now suddenly pings are back to normal?
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 0.840 ms 0.683 ms 0.647 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 25.377 ms 22.703 ms 39.996 ms
3 * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 22.501 ms 25.855 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 26.059 ms 26.113 ms 23.684 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 26.140 ms * 22.760 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 28.033 ms 23.964 ms 24.234 ms
something very strange is going on :-[
hmm actually not exactly back to normal as I'm getting 33ms - 60ms on a server that this morning and last night was 33ms constant.
It's not spikes either it's like a constant stream, as if (as said before) someone else is using my connection.
also it's doing it on more than one server, have just tried another that was ok in france and that's doing the same
Mine are back to normal again now... around the 45ms mark.
Email has been sent to support.
Still getting the unstable thing, pings servers at 30ms (using ping command), put more data down the line and it's up to 40-60ms, as above seems to be constant and not spikes.
This is to servers that were 33ms stable earlier and last night.
Almost as if someone is raping the idnet connection or something ??? :-[
gateway ping going up again:
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.281 ms 0.667 ms 0.751 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 75.045 ms 73.856 ms 58.180 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 54.144 ms 47.402 ms *
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 81.575 ms 77.984 ms 75.903 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 78.280 ms 71.707 ms 82.278 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 71.910 ms 82.996 ms 87.810 ms
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms mygateway1.ar7 [192.168.1.1]
2 18 ms 18 ms 17 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 19 ms 22 ms 20 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 20 ms 19 ms 19 ms idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete
Tracing route to multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms mygateway1.ar7 [192.168.1.1]
2 20 ms 18 ms 18 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 18 ms 19 ms 18 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 19 ms 18 ms 19 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 19 ms 19 ms 20 ms vlan43.redbus-sov3.core.enta.net [84.45.193.206]
6 22 ms 19 ms 21 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
7 21 ms 19 ms 18 ms multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
:)
Just wanted to say something about routing:
QuoteTracing route to quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms cisco [192.168.1.1]
2 25 ms 24 ms 24 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 23 ms 21 ms 21 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
4 23 ms 23 ms 21 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
5 25 ms 25 ms 23 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
6 45 ms 47 ms 41 ms ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net [195.69.144.48]
7 42 ms 41 ms 41 ms 0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.5]
8 58 ms 43 ms 45 ms 0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.94]
9 67 ms 67 ms 79 ms quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
Trace complete.
also
QuoteTracing route to kilo020.server4you.de [85.25.10.49]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms cisco [192.168.1.1]
2 25 ms 41 ms 25 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 23 ms 21 ms 21 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
4 23 ms 23 ms 21 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
5 23 ms 25 ms 23 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
6 45 ms 59 ms 67 ms AMS-IX.AMS-1-eth010-101.nl.lambdanet.net [195.69.144.212]
7 57 ms 57 ms 73 ms DUS-2-pos700.de.lambdanet.net [82.197.128.29]
8 72 ms 75 ms 55 ms DUS1-5029.de.lambdanet.net [217.71.104.30]
9 84 ms 60 ms 75 ms kilo020.server4you.de [85.25.10.49]
Trace complete.
I have notice that on the 5th my ping problems stopped. Then a day later everyone reported no ping problems. Now a few more days later today I see that I will see a ping spike every hour and that my average ping is VERY SLIGHTLY HIGHER eg now from 27ms to 30-35ms
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 08, 2006, 13:02:23
Ouch?! - Out of pure interest, has anyone else seen a change in their ping times besides me? (A change for the better)
My ping times still fluctuate somewhat (two days ago averaging around 27/28, yesterday averaging around 40, today averaging around 27/28 again), but in the last 24hrs or so, my latency graph has become much better, no longer showing the frequent spikes that it did previously; this improvement seems similar to the one you reported yesterday as well. I should add that I tested on most occasions with two different bits of kit (router and USB modem for comparison), and both have shown the same change, so it's certainly not down to equipment in my case.
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?sid=383780fb8a6325ed2c68372d6061acdd&jid=aaa18fb159292b32e9b02f8f3ebacecf&day=yesterday (http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?sid=383780fb8a6325ed2c68372d6061acdd&jid=aaa18fb159292b32e9b02f8f3ebacecf&day=yesterday)
Still low keep it up IDNet
Ping statistics for www.multiplay.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 29ms
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e
o god nooooooooo!
LOL oh dear. You weren't heavily using the connection during that period, though, were you? If so, I'd expect to see something like that.
Check out mine: ;D
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?sid=3e558fac2c207d467e5e2158e6aa1359&jid=aaa18fb159292b32e9b02f8f3ebacecf&day=today (http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?sid=3e558fac2c207d467e5e2158e6aa1359&jid=aaa18fb159292b32e9b02f8f3ebacecf&day=today)
Looks horrific on the face of it, as though something catastrophic happened in the early hours, but in fact, I was just up/downloading some stuff via P2P. It flattens out again when it's finished.
We cant see your l8nc graph, ie its not public :)
- Oh, and no one is in at my house...so unless the dog has mastered the use of a computer theres no use!
its not a stale session either....flat pings and no disconnects overnight, changes at around 7:50am
If you look at yesterdays graph, you can see heavy use periods...totally differnt to whats going on now - EDIT - hmm, despite some heavy use yesterday pings dont seem effected....i guess the videos/games i played didnt take up all my bandwidth!
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 11, 2006, 13:20:16
We cant see your l8nc graph, ie its not public :)
Oops, forgot to set the flag for the new test. Fixed now, cheers. :)
im happy to say my pings are pratically back to their normal selves!! :-* lovin it
Quote from: browney on Sep 11, 2006, 07:20:59
Still low keep it up IDNet
Ping statistics for www.multiplay.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 29ms
Im still hovering around the 50 mark :(
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=121
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=121
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=121
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 50ms, Average = 49ms
my pings are also back to normal now!
Interleaving now turned off, so I can concentrate properly on the ping aspect of things, and so far it's not looking at all good:- :(
Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.121]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 152 ms 153 ms 150 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
2 163 ms 161 ms 148 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
3 89 ms 84 ms 69 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
4 113 ms 112 ms 113 ms 212.58.238.129
5 93 ms 98 ms 99 ms www21.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.121]
Trace complete.
Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.121]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 102 ms 105 ms 109 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
2 138 ms 144 ms 157 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
3 162 ms 152 ms 123 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
4 89 ms 89 ms 96 ms 212.58.238.129
5 136 ms 129 ms 129 ms www21.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.121]
Trace complete.
This is after I've rebooted the modem, and tested using a different bit of kit. It just seems to happen at random. ???
EDIT: And 5 minutes later, without any change whatsoever by me:-
Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.115]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 31 ms 21 ms 24 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
2 23 ms 20 ms 20 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
3 20 ms 26 ms 21 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
4 21 ms 23 ms 28 ms 212.58.238.129
5 34 ms 40 ms 36 ms www15.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.115]
Trace complete.
It's ridiculous.
That's exactly the same as I was getting, not had it for a while, but if you're in quake3 or similar, you soon notice it when the ping goes to 200+ms.
Also even after it appears to go back to normal, if you connect to a server the ping is still effected (seems 25+ms more than traceroute or ping) aswell as having spikes :(.
(alltho some people here don't seem to realise the implications of ping times :( see other threads)
Hi,
Again today the problem arised at the same time as yesterday: http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e
trace's below:
Tracing route to multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms mygateway1.ar7 [192.168.1.1]
2 90 ms 73 ms 75 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45 ]
3 131 ms 134 ms 131 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 157 ms 125 ms 105 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 325 ms 250 ms 218 ms vlan43.redbus-sov3.core.enta.net [ 84.45.193.206]
6 94 ms 97 ms 94 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
7 96 ms 96 ms 92 ms multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms mygateway1.ar7 [ 192.168.1.1]
2 22 ms 23 ms 22 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 103 ms 317 ms 345 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 24 ms 17 ms 19 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
5 21 ms 20 ms 19 ms 212.58.238.129
6 20 ms 21 ms 18 ms 212.58.238.36
7 35 ms 40 ms 31 ms pos6-0.rt1.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.254]
8 20 ms 21 ms 21 ms bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]
Trace complete.
Thanks,
Simon
just sent that to support. its obviously not fixed....and im again cross.
Note: pings are now bobbing from 17ms to 40ms in pings, strange how the problem *almost* goes away when i start using my connection.........
(routers been synced all day so no re-syncs to change results!!!!)
EDIT: Also connection hasnt been used all day again, oh, and pings are fine now....anyone else thing this is really strange?
Another EDIT: Oh, and this is ALMOST exactly the same time period as yesterdays issues....
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 12, 2006, 16:43:54
Hi,
Again today the problem arised at the same time as yesterday: http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e
trace's below:
Tracing route to multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms mygateway1.ar7 [192.168.1.1]
2 90 ms 73 ms 75 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45 ]
3 131 ms 134 ms 131 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 157 ms 125 ms 105 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 325 ms 250 ms 218 ms vlan43.redbus-sov3.core.enta.net [ 84.45.193.206]
6 94 ms 97 ms 94 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
7 96 ms 96 ms 92 ms multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms mygateway1.ar7 [ 192.168.1.1]
2 22 ms 23 ms 22 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 103 ms 317 ms 345 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 24 ms 17 ms 19 ms rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
5 21 ms 20 ms 19 ms 212.58.238.129
6 20 ms 21 ms 18 ms 212.58.238.36
7 35 ms 40 ms 31 ms pos6-0.rt1.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.254]
8 20 ms 21 ms 21 ms bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155]
Trace complete.
Thanks,
Simon
just sent that to support. its obviously not fixed....and im again cross.
Note: pings are now bobbing from 17ms to 40ms in pings, strange how the problem *almost* goes away when i start using my connection.........
(routers been synced all day so no re-syncs to change results!!!!)
EDIT: Also connection hasnt been used all day again, oh, and pings are fine now....anyone else thing this is really strange?
Another EDIT: Oh, and this is ALMOST exactly the same time period as yesterdays issues....
Yes, the time period is similar to mine as well, i.e. during the daytime, but not much during the evenings or through the night, or even early morning. The fact that it even has a temporal structure is odd to me, and especially one like this, that isn't obviously correlated to traffic patterns.
Quote from: maxping on Sep 11, 2006, 17:50:38
Quote from: browney on Sep 11, 2006, 07:20:59
Still low keep it up IDNet
Ping statistics for www.multiplay.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 29ms
Im still hovering around the 50 mark :(
Pinging core1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=121
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=121
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=121
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 48ms, Maximum = 50ms, Average = 49ms
Wooohooo Miriam does it again (i think Simon was also involved)
My interleaving has finally been turned off by BT and my pings are now back to normal :D
Bring on the CoD ;)
Pinging 217.146.93.36 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:37ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:34ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:41ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:123
Reply from 217.146.93.36 bytes:32 Time:41ms TTL:123
Ping statistics for 217.146.93.36 :
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 47ms, Average = 30ms
"Does it only happen at that time of day or any time after that point.
Again could i ask you when the ping times are bad check your up and down
stream line attenuation and also ask someone to do a ping and tracert to
your router.
"
:/
Quote
[Wooohooo Miriam does it again (i think Simon was also involved)
My interleaving has finally been turned off by BT and my pings are now back to normal :D
Yep, they managed to get mine turned off today as well; looks like someone at BTW finally managed to get out of bed this morning. ;D
Now I just need to get my pings to look like yours as well!
If you look back at some of my posts you will see the pattern i saw was 10pm - 6pm during weekdays, evenings and weekends were ok usually. A machine on my network monitors latency and if you look at my graphs you can clearly see this pattern.
For a temporary solution the best thing you can do is disconnect and logon using the bt speed test username (username: speedtest@speedtest_domain password:any). This will reset you session and when you reconnect to idnet with your normal username and password you should be allocated to a different pipe. You may have to repeat this a few times if you still have bad pings as there is no guarantee you will be connected to a different pipe. As far as know pipes are allocated on a round robin basis to balance the load so its pretty much random.
This of course this is only guess work as i don't know the exact configuration idnet uses to balance pipes. Would be much better if they found the cause of the problem though....
Quote from: philco on Sep 12, 2006, 19:26:04
For a temporary solution the best thing you can do is disconnect and logon using the bt speed test username (username: speedtest@speedtest_domain password:any). This will reset you session and when you reconnect to idnet with your normal username and password you should be allocated to a different pipe.
Turning the modem off for 30 mins was the advise CS gave when some users had ping problems (pinging over 100ms and never dropping back) , this worked for me would it also work in this situation?
Quote from: philco on Sep 12, 2006, 19:26:04
If you look back at some of my posts you will see the pattern i saw was 10pm - 6pm during weekdays, evenings and weekends were ok usually. A machine on my network monitors latency and if you look at my graphs you can clearly see this pattern.
For a temporary solution the best thing you can do is disconnect and logon using the bt speed test username (username: speedtest@speedtest_domain password:any). This will reset you session and when you reconnect to idnet with your normal username and password you should be allocated to a different pipe. You may have to repeat this a few times if you still have bad pings as there is no guarantee you will be connected to a different pipe. As far as know pipes are allocated on a round robin basis to balance the load so its pretty much random.
This of course this is only guess work as i don't know the exact configuration idnet uses to balance pipes. Would be much better if they found the cause of the problem though....
That makes some sort of sense, but if it were a bad pipe, why does nobody seem to experience it during the evenings, nights, and possibly weekends? It seems to be a daytime phenomenon, although I'd need to do more tests to definitely confirm that. As I mentioned in a previous post, if it were a configuration problem, or even a bad pipe, I wouldn't expect it to show the temporal pattern that it does. It's almost as though something is happening while someone is at work.
For me, rebooting isn't necessary to effect a transformation; I haven't rebooted since my earlier pings of >100ms to bbc.co.uk, and at present they're reliably <20ms. My latency graph for today shows a clear point, almost as if someone flipped a switch, at which it suddenly started to behave itself.
All of the tracert results can be replicated with reverse tracerts as well, and pings outward with pings inward, so it doesn't seem to be a directional problem either. It's all very strange.
Yes maxping turning your router off for 30 minutes is the easier way of clearing your session, it just takes a little longer.
@karvala. Yes it is only a problem during work hours and although use the words "bad pipe" i don't mean that is physically broken or misconfigured (although it is possible). It could be simple case of more business users connected on that pipe causing it to become conjested during the day. It may not even be a bad pipe but a bad interface on the gateway that the pipes connect to. Only idnet have the answers and i am just guessing a little based on what i have seen over the last 5 weeks on my own connection and what people have posted here in the forums.
Quote from: karvala on Sep 12, 2006, 20:21:38
For me, rebooting isn't necessary to effect a transformation; I haven't rebooted since my earlier pings of >100ms to bbc.co.uk, and at present they're reliably <20ms. My latency graph for today shows a clear point, almost as if someone flipped a switch, at which it suddenly started to behave itself.
I also see a point where the pings drop as interleaving was switched off.
I have been running a few tests using "virtual ping" and "All seeing eye" and all seems well.
I pinged the bbc and changed the setttings to 100 loops.
Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 28ms
Quote from: maxping on Sep 12, 2006, 20:59:36
I also see a point where the pings drop as interleaving was switched off.
Sure, but to be clear, mine wasn't when interleaving was switched off, and doesn't just show a drop in ping times, but a sudden transformation from wildly varying ping times to normal ping behaviour.
Quote
I have been running a few tests using "virtual ping" and "All seeing eye" and all seems well.
That's good, and I hope it remains like it, but try it tomorrow during the day (some time early afternoon, for example), or let a l8c run all day. Hopefully, yours will still be okay, but it's worth checking because the problems don't tend to show up during the evening; mine, for example, is also fine at the moment (see below), but you can count on it not being so tomorrow afternoon. ;)
Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.126] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.126: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.126:
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 19ms, Average = 16ms
Quote
That's good, and I hope it remains like it, but try it tomorrow during the day (some time early afternoon, for example), or let a l8c run all day. Hopefully, yours will still be okay, but it's worth checking because the problems don't tend to show up during the evening;
I don't use the pc for gaming during the day unless its a bad weekend then i may do a bit of gaming.
If it keeps this stable during the evenings i will be happy.
Looks like they forgot to go to work today. ;D All quiet on the western front:-
Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.83 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Sure enough, I notice Avenger's latency graph is also flat, so it seems clear that it's the same problem that does/doesn't affect us at various times, and possibly some others as well. Anyway, let's hope it stays like this all afternoon. :)
my pings are currently 300ms + ...
Mine are their normal ~45ms...
No disconnections since 4.50am, hopefully there'll be no more :)
As i made enough posts showing my bad pings i will even the balance showing my now great pings, any potential customers who are gamers will see IDNet are Worth the money ;)
Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:34ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:36ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.113 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 28ms, Maximum = 36ms, Average = 30ms
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 13, 2006, 17:05:44
my pings are currently 300ms + ...
Oh dear; still now? I saw your l8c graph, which was okay up until around 3pm. If it follows the normal pattern, it should be alright again by about now, and mine is certainly okay at the moment:-
Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.115] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.115: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=249
Ping statistics for 212.58.224.115:
Packets: Sent = 60, Received = 60, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 23ms, Average = 17ms
Yes its ok now, once i got my new router settled in...which took 2 hours! - perhaps i should of read the manual ::)
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 13, 2006, 19:28:00
Yes its ok now, once i got my new router settled in...which took 2 hours! - perhaps i should of read the manual ::)
Na mate you did it the way most of us do , play with it first then when it goes t*ts up read the manual :D
lol yea
QuoteHi, my pings have been like the below all afternoon:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert multiplay.co.uk
Tracing route to multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 138 ms 132 ms 133 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 139 ms 122 ms 113 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 97 ms 129 ms 112 ms lonap2.enta.net [ 193.203.5.135]
5 142 ms 143 ms 157 ms te5-1.telehouse-east.bdr.enta.net [87.127.236.33
]
6 111 ms 108 ms 97 ms te1-2.redbus-sov3.core.enta.net [87.127.236.29]
7 140 ms 134 ms 134 ms gi4-3.enta-transit.as35028.net [84.45.252.122]
8 160 ms 163 ms * www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22 ]
9 154 ms 154 ms 153 ms www1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert demonhost.eu
Tracing route to demonhost.eu [194.50.80.120]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 97 ms 113 ms 105 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 130 ms 132 ms 116 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 116 ms 109 ms 125 ms lonap2.enta.net [193.203.5.135]
5 249 ms 207 ms 107 ms te4-1.telehouse-north.core.enta.net [87.127.236.
38]
6 87 ms 84 ms 99 ms 84-45-244-74.no-dns-yet.enta.net [84.45.244.74]
7 108 ms 115 ms 118 ms 194.50.80.120
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert idnet.net
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 80 ms 82 ms 80 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 107 ms 110 ms 130 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 110 ms 103 ms 118 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 110 ms 100 ms 112 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert jolt.co.uk
Tracing route to jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 125 ms 128 ms 118 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 153 ms 160 ms 150 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 100 ms 97 ms 98 ms g2-2-501.cr01.hx2.bb.pipex.net [ 193.203.5.14]
5 186 ms 152 ms 195 ms v3952.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net [62.72.137.9]
6 137 ms 141 ms 140 ms g3-1-5.er01.tn5.bb.pipex.net [62.72.140.14]
7 132 ms 131 ms 132 ms ge-0-0-0-3801.jolt-gw.cust.pipex.net [212.241.24
1.14]
8 154 ms 163 ms 148 ms secure.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>
Im sure this isnt related to ADSL max, due my router's been off for 2 hours or so and the problems still there.
Thanks,
Also my speeds are currently 200kb/s
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Mine are about the same... but there is a thunderstorm going on right now so I'll try again once it's over.
Hmm, mine aren't too bad at the moment, although pretty variable as can be seen:-
Pinging www.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=56
Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 13, Received = 13, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 86ms, Average = 31ms
This is an extra hour later than the others, though, which can make a big difference at this time of day, so it may have been worse earlier.
EDIT: And in fact it's deteriorated in the last couple of minutes:-
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=56
Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 26, Received = 26, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 58ms, Maximum = 166ms, Average = 116ms
Currently on CSS, my average ping atm is 101ms
Edit: Now 150ms and no reply from idnet :( - and when we thought it was fixed...it aint..........
i make that...2months? (just under i think) - "wahoo"
Well now, just 20mins after the last lot, and it's looking fine again here. It's just crazy:-
Pinging www.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=56
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=56
Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 18, Received = 18, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 17ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 19ms
well im still getting the problem but much rarer and not as severe
i am now getting my usual ping of <20 but yes every now and again it jumps up to 100+ but more likely to jump to say 50
same, although after a few mins of normal i get a few mins of bad.....weird
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 14, 2006, 18:07:33
Currently on CSS, my average ping atm is 101ms
Edit: Now 150ms and no reply from idnet :( - and when we thought it was fixed...it aint..........
i make that...2months? (just under i think) - "wahoo"
Avenger have you tried the usual stuff, run a line directly to the unfiltered master socket from the modem.
I cannot understand why you have high pings and switching the router off for 30 mins doesn't fix it , its always worked for me.
I also don't pay much attention to the L8nc
reports as i have just checked mine and i see lots of the blue lines yet my pings have been fine and I'm running them every few mins to check against the sites graphs.
Yes ive tried a direct connection and all that. Remeber that this is also a new router :) - and other users are getting the same aswell :/
ive also been checking l8nc alongside traces and pings...and the traces and pings show it to be worse than l8nc tends to show!!!!!
Some blue spikes in a l8c graph are fine; you'd expect them from normal usage. You'd also expect to increases in green and yellow during periods of heavy usage. What you would *not* expect to see, unless there was major congestion or another type of problem, would be significant increases in green and yellow while the connection is not even in use. That's what I see, and they certainly correspond to periods in which pings and traces show high latency.
In addition, I've been doing (at Miriam's request) inward and outward traces, and inward and outward pings (from various other UK servers to which I have access), as well as monitoring line stats (which are always fine), during periods of high pings, and the inward and outward high latencies always coincide, not surprisingly, so the l8c graph, while not perfect, is a reasonable measure, and supported by the other evidence.
Incidentally, I've just done a couple of tests at BBR. My transfer efficiency was rated at 100%, as I'd expect (having done it before and made sure all the settings are optimised). The line status test, however, showed some packet loss on the IDNet network: results can be seen here (http://www.dslreports.com/quality/nil/2090073). Is anyone who isn't experiencing this problem also seeing this, i.e. is this significant or not (hard to tell without firm evidence from elsewhere)?
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 14, 2006, 19:17:32
Remeber that this is also a new router :) - and other users are getting the same aswell
If you think it may be the router i have one of these and it works fine - http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/TRUST-External-Modem-Router-with-Firewall-445A_W0QQitemZ170028268361QQihZ007QQcategoryZ3692QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Quote from: maxping on Sep 14, 2006, 19:36:31
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 14, 2006, 19:17:32
Remeber that this is also a new router :) - and other users are getting the same aswell
If you think it may be the router i have one of these and it works fine - http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/TRUST-External-Modem-Router-with-Firewall-445A_W0QQitemZ170028268361QQihZ007QQcategoryZ3692QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
you misunderstood me :)
my old router did it, my other old router did it, my old old router did it, and so does my new one....
...And so does my router, and so does my USB modem....
4 routers that must be a record :D
I said in one of the threads i didn't see how one router could be better than another as surely they all do the same thing.
BTW when i had my ping issues my usb modem gave the same results as my router.
Quote from: karvala on Sep 14, 2006, 19:30:02
Some blue spikes in a l8c graph are fine; you'd expect them from normal usage. You'd also expect to increases in green and yellow during periods of heavy usage. What you would *not* expect to see, unless there was major congestion or another type of problem, would be significant increases in green and yellow while the connection is not even in use. That's what I see, and they certainly correspond to periods in which pings and traces show high latency.
In addition, I've been doing (at Miriam's request) inward and outward traces, and inward and outward pings (from various other UK servers to which I have access), as well as monitoring line stats (which are always fine), during periods of high pings, and the inward and outward high latencies always coincide, not surprisingly, so the l8c graph, while not perfect, is a reasonable measure, and supported by the other evidence.
Incidentally, I've just done a couple of tests at BBR. My transfer efficiency was rated at 100%, as I'd expect (having done it before and made sure all the settings are optimised). The line status test, however, showed some packet loss on the IDNet network: results can be seen here (http://www.dslreports.com/quality/nil/2090073). Is anyone who isn't experiencing this problem also seeing this, i.e. is this significant or not (hard to tell without firm evidence from elsewhere)?
http://www.dslreports.com/quality/nil/2090082
Hmm, so we have the same BBR line results as well. I wonder if people who haven't got the ping problem would get these as well?
One more thing I noticed tonight is shown clearly in our l8c graphs, which I've stuck together here: (http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n46/karvala_2006/l8c_graphs.jpg) You can see that the first really bad part when I came online, and even the little bit that follows it, has an almost identical shape for both of us, even though we're obviously using completely different connections. It's pretty clear that the cause of that problem was nothing particular to our individual connections, but something higher up the network that caused the same problem for both of us.
Quote from: karvala on Sep 14, 2006, 22:49:39
Hmm, so we have the same BBR line results as well. I wonder if people who haven't got the ping problem would get these as well?
One more thing I noticed tonight is shown clearly in our l8c graphs, which I've stuck together here: (http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n46/karvala_2006/l8c_graphs.jpg) You can see that the first really bad part when I came online, and even the little bit that follows it, has an almost identical shape for both of us, even though we're obviously using completely different connections. It's pretty clear that the cause of that problem was nothing particular to our individual connections, but something higher up the network that caused the same problem for both of us.
Yep, over the weekend i plan to set up some more tests from a off-network server - just to have something to back l8nc up :)
My interent has just come back up. L8nc seems to be lagging behind tho...(time wise) so i estimate it went down at 9 and came back up at 10:50.
However, see my l8nc graph:
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e
pings!!!
- its gone from badish, to good, to bad, to good, and to utterly unbarable!
Im still awaiting a reply to a email i sent IDnet yesterday about the pings, although i expect no progress to be made.
Is it that time again? (mac time) - I mean, i dont mean to moan sooo much about this, but, it does effect my use of the connection and is totally inconvient, especially since its been ongoing since..the end of july......
hmm new router and still getting the 100+ms ping to the gateway address :(
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.301 ms 0.669 ms 0.655 ms
2 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 3.205 ms 2.766 ms 3.110 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 149.630 ms 127.191 ms 134.532 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 124.485 ms 143.708 ms 148.047 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 147.697 ms 144.530 ms 143.868 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 166.834 ms 165.507 ms 149.548 ms
Guess it wasn't my old router causing the problems ::)
Pings to the gateway today are abysmal , can't see any point in staying now tbh , I use this connection for gaming & it quite clearly isnt up to the task.
Pinging 212.69.63.40 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=253
Ping statistics for 212.69.63.40:
Packets: Sent = 18, Received = 18, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 123ms, Maximum = 168ms, Average = 154ms
Control-C
^C
Quote from: Rolacka on Sep 15, 2006, 12:10:05
Pings to the gateway today are abysmal , can't see any point in staying now tbh , I use this connection for gaming & it quite clearly isnt up to the task.
Pinging 212.69.63.40 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=253
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=253
Ping statistics for 212.69.63.40:
Packets: Sent = 18, Received = 18, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 123ms, Maximum = 168ms, Average = 154ms
Control-C
^C
Same here, idnet were saying it was my line or exchange. I guess that can't be true as 2 of us are having the same problems at the same time.
Was the same with Danni the other day, both of us had 100+ms ping to the gateway at the same time :(
Also looking at my l8nc graph and AvengerUK's they look exactly the same, with pings going high on both at 10:30 and packet loss/timeouts at the exact same time.
co-incidence? ??? ::)
You can see if it is your exchange easily by logging into the bt test & pinging off that , which I'm sure you will find as I did that u ping 12 - 15 ms without fluctuation. The problem is during peak time IDnet is unsuitable as a gaming isp
login to bt_test@startup_domain
leave existing password, as no pw required.
reboot router, when connected check the router's gateway, probably a 217.47.***.** IP or something similar?
That will be your BT RAS, so try pinging that.
Yer I did that a while ago when I had these ping problems to gateway and as you say the ping to the BT gateway is about 16ms :(
Shame the ping 'fix' was only for a week or two :( and in that time a few of us found the connections seemed to be capped down at busy times of the day ??? probably to keep the pipe's bandwidth down in order to keep the pings constant :(
ive already made a post @ ADSL GUIDE in the search for a new ISP - its a great shame that the problems cant be sorted :(
Quote from: Rolacka on Sep 15, 2006, 12:10:05
I use this connection for gaming & it quite clearly isn't up to the task.
I have just read your previous posts from your profile and of the 4 ping results you have posted 2 are fine.
Have you called customer support ?
If yes what did they say?
I am as guilty as the next man for using the forum to have a moan but at least i was dealing with customer support at the time and it was BT that were causing the problem.
To say your connection isn't up to the job isn't exactly true as you can get good and bad results.
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 15, 2006, 12:35:07
ive already made a post @ ADSL GUIDE in the search for a new ISP - its a great shame that the problems cant be sorted :(
If it was IDNet causing the slow pings why can i get the results below at 12:41 ?
Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:68ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.84 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:61ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:37ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.79 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:248
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 28ms, Maximum = 68ms, Average = 32ms
Well if its my line how can i ping this to the bt gateway & ping the above to the IDnet gateway ?
Pinging 217.47.73.142 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Ping statistics for 217.47.73.142:
Packets: Sent = 19, Received = 19, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 11ms
Control-C
Max - some people have the problem, others dont. your one of the 'others' - and i also ping to the bt gateway fine. Idnet problem. for sure.
And i emailed IDnet, not rang...over the phone its difficult to send screenshots and alike ;) - still no reply to that though, and it was yesterday ~ 5pm i sent it.
Can someone tell me if theres a 30 days notice or anything like that? ie, my billing data is around the 26th...if i left before that...would i pay again orrrr?
Quote
And i emailed IDnet, not rang...over the phone its difficult to send screenshots and alike ;) - still no reply to that though, and it was yesterday ~ 5pm i sent it.
I'm not taking sides but you emailed them at 5 and are now moaning you didn't get a reply, the office would have been about to close and your email is probably in a line of emails , when i was with F2S you were lucky to get a reply in 3 days,i have always had prompt replies i would have given them until the end of the day or i would have phoned them to ask why it had not been replied to.
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 15, 2006, 12:54:58
Max - some people have the problem, others dont. your one of the 'others' - and i also ping to the bt gateway fine. Idnet problem. for sure.
And i emailed IDnet, not rang...over the phone its difficult to send screenshots and alike ;) - still no reply to that though, and it was yesterday ~ 5pm i sent it.
Can someone tell me if theres a 30 days notice or anything like that? ie, my billing data is around the 26th...if i left before that...would i pay again orrrr?
I should have said earlier, I had a nice phonecall from Miriam yesterday, who said they've been very busy over the last couple of weeks, so what she's planning on doing is looking at the ping problem during this coming weekend when there won't be a lot of phonecalls to interrupt it, and let us know on Monday what the situation is, so it might be worth hanging on until then.
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 15, 2006, 12:54:58
Can someone tell me if theres a 30 days notice or anything like that? ie, my billing data is around the 26th...if i left before that...would i pay again orrrr?
Why not give them time to fix the problem?
*EDIT*
Looks like you may have more info on Monday (just read Kavs post on last page)
Quote from: karvala on Sep 15, 2006, 13:05:09
I should have said earlier, I had a nice phonecall from Miriam yesterday, who said they've been very busy over the last couple of weeks, so what she's planning on doing is looking at the ping problem during this coming weekend when there won't be a lot of phonecalls to interrupt it, and let us know on Monday what the situation is, so it might be worth hanging on until then.
Cool, I hope they sort it out over the weekend then as it's stupid and as you say it's not acceptable or usable for GAMING.
Well, it might and might not. @ MAX : yes, but i sent an email a week or so ago also....
@ karvala - weve heard this before, i cant simply beleive them at all presently, considering weve heard lots and lots of "we'll be doing..." and "were looking into.." over the last month and a 1/2....
At present my pings have stabilised - so for now i can atleast do some gaming!
Quote from: maxping on Sep 15, 2006, 13:05:43
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 15, 2006, 12:54:58
Can someone tell me if theres a 30 days notice or anything like that? ie, my billing data is around the 26th...if i left before that...would i pay again orrrr?
Why not give them time to fix the problem?
*EDIT*
Looks like you may have more info on Monday (just read Kavs post on last page)
(1 1/2 months theve had max....)
Quote
(1 1/2 months theve had max....)
I can see how frustrating it must be but how much actual contact have you had with CS?
All i see is 3 people posting graph after graph and ping results in an endless loop, there seems to be hardly any mention of conversations with Customer Support , when i had my recent interleaving problem i was getting phone calls and emails regularly, i did have to phone a couple of times to ask why i had not got a reply but it was usually down to the office being extremely busy.
Maybe its because IDnet havent emailed me back? - All the convosations with support weve had are posted here!
still the same :(
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.302 ms 0.674 ms 0.645 ms
2 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 3.187 ms 2.753 ms 3.218 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 164.098 ms 167.151 ms 165.721 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 159.070 ms 133.486 ms 108.909 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 110.896 ms 111.619 ms 102.508 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 98.858 ms 106.987 ms 114.605 ms
l8nc graph looks stupid, for 4hours it's been over 100ms ping.
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 15, 2006, 14:08:41
- All the convosations with support weve had are posted here!
If you look back through the thread there hasn't been a lot of feedback in the posts about your or anyone anyones CS conversations.
As its a free number why haven't you phoned daily , I'm sure i would be on the phone every day until it was sorted as you are paying for a service you are not getting.
Quote from: equk on Sep 15, 2006, 14:13:22
still the same :(
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.302 ms 0.674 ms 0.645 ms
2 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 3.187 ms 2.753 ms 3.218 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 164.098 ms 167.151 ms 165.721 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 159.070 ms 133.486 ms 108.909 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 110.896 ms 111.619 ms 102.508 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 98.858 ms 106.987 ms 114.605 ms
l8nc graph looks stupid, for 4hours it's been over 100ms ping.
My graph has settled down for the last 20mins, however i doubt it will stay like that - it did this yesterday also, brief periods of "ok" lol
I said why before max....tracerts and l8nc grpahs cant be sent over a phone call. All my talks with simon also required results (on the whole) to be sent via email - etc etc. Max, are you deliberatly trying to sorta say in a none-direct way somewhere along the lines of "Were all talking absoulute rubbish and IDnet are not to blame?// Were not doing what we should be doing?" etc etc
Now then ladies ;)
As you will undoubtedly see this thread has run and run. I've no intention of closing things and getting heavy-handed but lets stay focussed on the topic and not let frustrations or problems result in " 'aving a go at one another" in a none-too-subtle ' you lookin' at me ? ' fashion
Stay on target...
[oh dear ! :-[ Name the film !]
:police:
Stay on target...
[oh dear ! Name the film !]
- i dont get it :o
Pings are still stable to my suprise however!
I just re-synced the router and it seems to be better again, tried reconnect first which did nothing but on a re-sync it seems to be back to how it was.
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.275 ms 0.683 ms 0.645 ms
2 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 3.140 ms 2.801 ms *
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 25.456 ms 33.927 ms 23.670 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 26.657 ms 23.342 ms 27.088 ms
5 * redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 195.557 ms 328.839 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 26.135 ms 24.906 ms 23.717 ms
check the second to last line:
5 * redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 195.557 ms 328.839 ms
[LOL, Use the Force, Luke]
Let me clarify the situation regarding the thread and IDNet. I've certainly been having some communication with IDNet about the issue, but I haven't mentioned most of the correspondence because to me e-mail or telephone communication is essentially private; I wouldn't want IDNet staff to think that if they contacted me, the resultant conversation would be plastered all over the internet. That would seem unfair on them, hence I tend not to mention it; that shouldn't be mistaken for thinking that there has been no correspondence, however. ;)
In addition, I post regularly in this thread not as a way of trying to attract attention, or let off steam, or anything like that, but rather simply to provide as much information as I can to help the IDNet staff diagnose what appears to be a difficult problem. I could e-mail them all the details (and have done, when requested by them), but it would seem rude and intrusive to me to hammer their e-mail or telephone all day long with ping problem information, so I prefer to post the information here, and let them view it at their leisure. :)
I should also add that there are definitely more than three people experiencing the problem. There are at least half a dozen who've posted relatively recently in this thread alone that are still experiencing it, and as probably only gamers and hardcore techies would even notice the problem most of the time, especially as it tends to be limited to the time that most people are at work, I suspect in reality there could be ten times that number or more who actually have the problem. To treat it as an isolated problem for just two or three people would, IMO, be a mistake. In support of this, I could point out that the 65s ping response spike of one of the routers was declared as an isolated problem affecting only a handful of people until we got a few more people to test it, and then had it properly looked at, and in fact turned out to affect everyone (though not a problem in the end), just most people wouldn't have noticed it because they don't routinely ping that router.
While I'm here, some more info ;D. I think philco is on the right lines in suggesting it's a bad pipe or gateway interface (the problem is certainly related to the gateway; that's crystal clear), and can change as a function of session. My current l8c graph (http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?sid=3e558fac2c207d467e5e2158e6aa1359&jid=aaa18fb159292b32e9b02f8f3ebacecf&day=today) shows a step change in minimum ping time and reliability each time I disconnected, logged into the BT test connection, and then disconnected and logged back into IDNet.
QuoteMax, are you deliberatly trying to sorta say in a none-direct way somewhere along the lines of "Were all talking absoulute rubbish and IDnet are not to blame?// Were not doing what we should be doing?" etc etc
No i can see you have problems and i understand you cannot show pics on the phone.
I would be ringing and saying "get the thread over at idnetters on your screen and tell me why my ping is so high"
I would do this every day until i got an answer.
No one should have to put up with pings like that for 6 weeks.
wow nice the re-sync lasted 30mins
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.299 ms 0.697 ms 0.658 ms
2 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 3.251 ms 2.788 ms 3.150 ms
3 * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 137.405 ms 117.683 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 131.417 ms 116.606 ms 125.616 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 127.201 ms 105.649 ms 90.449 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 92.908 ms 74.662 ms 81.778 ms
Are we expected to re-sync every 30mins? :( ::)
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 15, 2006, 14:46:31
:police:
Stay on target...
[oh dear ! Name the film !]
- i dont get it :o
Pings are still stable to my suprise however!
Star wars....in the death star trench :laugh: now where did I put my coat ?
Quote from: maxping on Sep 15, 2006, 15:30:26
QuoteMax, are you deliberatly trying to sorta say in a none-direct way somewhere along the lines of "Were all talking absoulute rubbish and IDnet are not to blame?// Were not doing what we should be doing?" etc etc
No i can see you have problems and i understand you cannot show pics on the phone.
I would be ringing and saying "get the thread over at idnetters on your screen and tell me why my ping is so high"
I would do this every day until i got an answer.
No one should have to put up with pings like that for 6 weeks.
Appolgies for *almost* loosing my temper...its been a long week ::)
No probs mate i know how frustrating things can be look at the fun i recently had with BT.
I hope it gets sorted as i don't want to see any regular leave.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Especially as you have the game server (only joking) :D
;)
Thats one of things i like about IDnet....the community :)
So far this morning: Stable for 1hr
Now pings are steadily increasing :'(
pings atm seem a bit high, altho stable :(
pinging servers that were 30ms at 60ms
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms cisco [192.168.1.1]
2 3 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.0.1
3 37 ms 36 ms 36 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
4 38 ms 35 ms 39 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
5 36 ms 37 ms 37 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
6 37 ms 37 ms 36 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
36ms to the gateway :o ::)
28ms to the gateway, slightly higer than normal, but nothing much.
However, spiking http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e occasionally - nothing dire!
As you can see, mine's been fine today: http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?sid=3e558fac2c207d467e5e2158e6aa1359&jid=aaa18fb159292b32e9b02f8f3ebacecf&day=today (http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?sid=3e558fac2c207d467e5e2158e6aa1359&jid=aaa18fb159292b32e9b02f8f3ebacecf&day=today). I've just rebooted the router, though, so we'll see what the connection's like now.
looking at my latency graph there are timeouts or disconnects at 10:20, then at 11:00 to 11:30, and again at 12:05 also seems to be a hike in ping times by 10ms after the timeout at 12:05.
Ping to the gateway is also still 36ms ::)
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.287 ms 0.684 ms 0.640 ms
2 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 3.196 ms 2.773 ms 3.187 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 36.354 ms 35.050 ms *
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 34.310 ms 35.051 ms 36.036 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 35.591 ms 35.909 ms 35.391 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 34.772 ms 35.463 ms *
re-sync seemed to sort it out for now, not sure for how long tho
Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms cisco [192.168.1.1]
2 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.0.1
3 36 ms 34 ms 35 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
4 35 ms 37 ms 37 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
5 36 ms 36 ms 37 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
6 37 ms 36 ms 37 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 cisco [192.168.1.1]
2 2 ms 2 ms 3 ms 192.168.0.1
3 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
4 25 ms 25 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
5 25 ms 25 ms 23 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
6 25 ms 25 ms 24 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert idnet.net
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 15 ms 15 ms 16 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 16 ms 17 ms 17 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 18 ms 17 ms 17 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>
:D
Quote from: equk on Sep 16, 2006, 20:06:03
also seems to be a hike in ping times by 10ms after the timeout at 12:05.
Ping to the gateway is also still 36ms ::)
Can i ask what you consider to be a ping that is too high for gaming?
In your last 2 posts the highest ping is 37ms are you expecting to get lower than this?
I used to get much lower than 37ms, although I now get around 50-60ms. Not that I really mind, I suspect it could be interleaving.
Just incase anyone is interested;
Quote
traceroute to idnetters.co.uk (212.69.36.101), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 <removed> (212.69.xx.xxx) 0.643 ms 0.545 ms 0.612 ms
2 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 55.196 ms 66.717 ms 55.358 ms
3 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 55.226 ms 55.927 ms 55.132 ms
4 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 56.870 ms 55.642 ms 54.647 ms
5 hosting.idnet.net (212.69.36.101) 54.657 ms 55.860 ms 57.021 ms
Adam
Quote from: Adam on Sep 17, 2006, 16:31:42
I used to get much lower than 37ms, although I now get around 50-60ms. Not that I really mind, I suspect it could be interleaving.
Adam give Miriam a call she has just had a battle with BT over interleaving being put on my line and my pings have gone from a minimum of 50ms to the below.
Pinging www.idnet.net with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:38ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:34ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Ping statistics for www.idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 38ms, Average = 29ms
Over the weekend things where generally ok, however today, its all back again, I also got an email off miriam basically asking me to do the things ive been asked to do so many times, which ive done sooo many times - such as differnt routers? ("have you tried")
Soo...
As of 11:41 - MAC requested :(
I'm sorry to hear that, but I can entirely understand your frustration. I think they're making a mistake in the handling of this, by having decided in their own minds that there isn't a problem, and looking round for evidence that this is the case (hence the continued questions about lines and equipment, and running ping tests on a Sunday after having been informed that it's a weekday problem), and ignoring overwhelming evidence that there is. You're the first casualty, and they'll be more, far more than just the three or four people that they think are currently effected (when in fact it's undoubtedly substantially more than that). The (mis)handling of this is also damaging their reputation outside, which certainly isn't something I want to see.
Where are you thinking of heading off to?
Im not sure yet - as IDnet really were the best ive had before the ping issue :'(
Im currently talking to some freinds i have in the ISP industry, who are helping me look into some! Nildram is already out of the equation though = Pipex owned = bad support ::)
Quote
As of 11:41 - MAC requested :(
Oh no :o
Well i guess there comes a time where you have tried everything you can and nothing seems to work,i just hope it does turn out to be something to do with IDNet and not BT or you are going to kick yourself.
Have you decided on a new supplier?
Nope, not yet - although one possible is an enta reseller...!
Not had time to look for one really...currently plowing through pages and pages of quesitons!
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e - ahh the pain!
Latest results:-
IDNet login using router:
Minimum = 74ms, Maximum = 165ms, Average = 128ms
BT test login using router:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 11ms
IDNet login using USB modem:
Minimum = 115ms, Maximum = 164ms, Average = 144ms
BT test login using USB modem:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 19ms, Average = 14ms
Just phoned up and persuaded Tim to verify the results from their end (on the grounds that seeing is believing :D), and sure enough he was able to do so (finding some pings over 300ms), and they're going to run some more tests this afternoon, so at least they're still on case.
nice
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.290 ms 0.666 ms 0.653 ms
2 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 3.190 ms 2.776 ms 3.187 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 147.101 ms 145.147 ms 140.542 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 313.264 ms 177.250 ms 318.588 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 149.165 ms 143.271 ms 139.921 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 141.259 ms 138.665 ms 145.675 ms
Yesterday my connection was rock solid and my gaming was fine - (ok it was a bit messy between 15 & 16 but i didnt notice - probably wasnt gaming at the time)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/yesterday.jpg)
Today i can hardly get the pages to refresh and my pings are a joke - (i have tried the 30 mins shut down trick , it didnt work)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/today.jpg)
Yes, exactly same here maxping; fine yesterday (being a weekend of course), but today web times really slow, high ping times (very similar looking graph to yours in fact), new session fails to work (except once this morning). Let's hope the network tests this afternoon reveal something useful, and let's also hope there's no more of this "problem? what problem?" nonsense.
Im still waiting a reply for my MAC request, no doubt ill get a phone call later i suppose ;) - pings are still very unstable - ie:
One time:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 24 ms 20 ms 19 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 161 ms 283 ms 247 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 106 ms 277 ms 327 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 23 ms 23 ms 23 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
And another:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 90 ms 90 ms 83 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 47 ms 42 ms 41 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 54 ms 51 ms 48 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 39 ms 39 ms 42 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
EDIT:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert idnet.net
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
2 141 ms 96 ms 100 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 197 ms 138 ms 147 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 191 ms 259 ms 217 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 134 ms 123 ms 257 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>
OMG!!
you better still keep coming on here after you've left, so you can rejoin once they have fixed it :P :banana2:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert idnet.net
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 17 ms 21 ms 24 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 24 ms 19 ms 19 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 20 ms 18 ms 20 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 24 ms 20 ms 26 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>
Router has not resynced/reconnected since the last lot...
And again, not resynced etc, made sure connection was free (nothing else using it) at the time taken....
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert idnet.net
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
2 342 ms 330 ms 234 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 189 ms 200 ms 194 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 214 ms 217 ms 234 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 251 ms 410 ms 265 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert idnet.net
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
2 312 ms 312 ms 244 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 183 ms 420 ms 330 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 218 ms 201 ms 215 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 207 ms 222 ms 192 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert idnet.net
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
2 409 ms 324 ms 261 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 320 ms 330 ms 333 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 367 ms 346 ms 268 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 384 ms 387 ms 374 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>tracert idnet.net
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
2 177 ms 174 ms 167 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 210 ms 223 ms 247 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
4 262 ms 263 ms 254 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 250 ms 247 ms 244 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>
rediculous
Ping hasn't been that bad, altho it is higher than normal it was stable.
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.339 ms 0.672 ms 0.693 ms
2 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 2.900 ms 2.778 ms 3.138 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 158.621 ms 155.971 ms 148.336 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 159.357 ms 147.764 ms 161.866 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 161.854 ms 163.213 ms 155.984 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 158.091 ms 145.008 ms 142.147 ms
until now, yet again 150ms ping to the gateway.
omg - Maxping has just said that a possible reason could be BUISNESSES!
Why did we not think this befoe?!? I think its extremely obvious - pings are worst between 9 and 5 - after that fine! AND only weekdays!
Do I detect the teensiest note of sarcasm in there? :D
I dont see how as that would mean every one would have a problem
Yes and no, its just that it now seems obvious..where as max is the first person to actually realise it!
Not everyone connects using the same bt central pipe or to the same interface. I think i mentioned a few pages back that it could very well be business users overcrowding one of the pipes but i think the guess work is over and it is really upto idnet to find and fix the problem. Its pretty obvious there is a problem and if idnet are to live upto their good name they should be on the case now.
Any chance of some kind of update as to whats happening idnet ? simon ?
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 18, 2006, 18:00:07
Yes and no, its just that it now seems obvious..where as max is the first person to actually realise it!
Huh? I've been saying for ages that it's *office* hours, i.e. business workers. Sorry, I thought that was clear. The question is why particular business use should affect only some users, and to a quite extreme extent that varies considerably with time, and sometimes in the very same way for users in completely different locations. It's been quite clear it's business-related in some way; the difficulty is in the details.
My high pings today have tied in with low speeds, at CS's request i have done speed tests using the BT speed test and the normal ones we all use.
Both tests have given exactly the same results so CS have said its not idnets end its contention at the exchange.
If the BT test was high and the idnet one low they would have something to go on.
As i have said before i do not use my puter much during the day so for me this high ping problem has been a first , I'm not saying i have never had high pings but the 30 mins reset has always cured it before.
CS are still investigating.
Quote from: browney on Sep 18, 2006, 17:55:44
I dont see how as that would mean every one would have a problem
Only the ones who do ping tests ;)
wooo me and maxping gurus!!
Quote
Huh? I've been saying for ages that it's *office* hours, i.e. business workers. Sorry, I thought that was clear.
Most businesses i visit in my job until recently still used dial up as they didn't require a permanently on connection.
With the price between the 2 so close i doubt there are many left still using dial up , this has put more pressure on the already full to bursting exchanges so its hardly surprising we get contention during the day.
BT wont be rushing out and spending on the exchanges as the isp's will soon be putting their own equipment into the same exchanges so i guess for now we are in a catch 22 situation.
Quote from: maxping on Sep 18, 2006, 18:20:36
Quote from: browney on Sep 18, 2006, 17:55:44
I dont see how as that would mean every one would have a problem
Only the ones who do ping tests ;)
Yep ive always been a gob s***e :D
well, my pings are steadily improving im glad to say - just unlucky for the minority / majority that have major problems still :(
Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 18, 2006, 18:45:43
well, my pings are steadily improving im glad to say - just unlucky for the minority / majority that have major problems still :(
Yep mine are also looking good , wish i had £1 for every speed test and ping test ive done today ;D
Sweet ;D
Pinging www.idnet.net with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:34ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Ping statistics for www.idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 28ms
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e
Like clockwork....
Anyway, ive already signed up with UKFSN - the sooner the migration, the better!
mine is exactly the same at exactly the same time and it still is pinging the gateway at 150ms.
4hours at 150ms ping to the gateway ??? ::)
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 1.341 ms 0.670 ms 0.672 ms
2 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 3.281 ms 3.813 ms 9.405 ms
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 155.854 ms 149.582 ms 149.331 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 143.952 ms 154.285 ms 149.392 ms
5 redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1) 148.303 ms 149.748 ms 152.004 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 154.747 ms 155.597 ms 155.996 ms
bttest connection:
--- 217.41.220.142 ping statistics ---
220 packets transmitted, 220 received, 0% packet loss, time 219980ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.230/16.927/22.633/0.781 ms
also on re-sync after the bttest, the ping is exactly the same ::)
not sure what has changed but it is worse today :-\
Sorry guys... :-[
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?sid=3e558fac2c207d467e5e2158e6aa1359&jid=aaa18fb159292b32e9b02f8f3ebacecf&day=today
Pinging 212.69.63.45 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Ping statistics for 212.69.63.45:
Packets: Sent = 16, Received = 16, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 24ms
Solid as a rock today. Being the trouble-maker that I am, though ;D, I'm going to change to the USB modem for a while, and reconnect the session a couple of times to see if I can induce the problem to reappear, or if it's really gone for today.
Ive just done some tests, Reconnect 1 = 29ms reconnect 2 = 250ms reconnect 3 110ms and current 100ms....pot luck it seems!
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 19, 2006, 15:46:03
Ive just done some tests, Reconnect 1 = 29ms reconnect 2 = 250ms reconnect 3 110ms and current 100ms....pot luck it seems!
Yes, undoubtedly; we've seen this in some previous posts as well. The temporary workaround seems to be to disconnect, and reconnect a few times (no 30-minute wait needed for this particular problem in my experience), until you strike it lucky, and off you go. How long it lasts after you do that before returning is anyone's guess, though unfortunately it's not generally that long during the daytime (certainly you can't find the good path, and then stay on it and have it remain good indefinitely).
Yesterday -
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/18-sept.jpg)
Today- (i wasn't home try pinging anywhere but assume as the graph line is low i would have had low pings)
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/19-sept.jpg)
My pings have no settled down, however the circumstances in which they did involved maxing out my connection....weird!
Anyway, migration date set for the 26th
Spoke too soon. :'(
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/interleavedbackon.jpg)
You can see when the connection drops and then the line jumps and I'm back to pings over 50ms but not into the 100's.
And heres the reason they have put interleaving back on f*****g BT b******s. >:(
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxping/modemdets-1.jpg)
oh man do bt TRY to p1$$ us off??
Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 19, 2006, 19:57:18
oh man do bt TRY to p1$$ us off??
You are right there mate.
The most annoying thing is as from approx 5:30 p.m yesterday my graph was running in the sub 30ms range (as you can see in the first part of the graph above) if BT hadn't switched it back on i would be sitting here with a ear to ear grin as it would have been finally sorted.
Trust BT to screw up >:(
One plus my pings are stable (no big spikes) just a lot higher than they were yesterday evening Pinging www.idnet.net with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:44ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:43ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:48ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:44ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:48ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:53ms TTL:60
Ping statistics for www.idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 43ms, Maximum = 53ms, Average = 47ms
well after a couple of days of stable pings , things are working about aswell as I've come to expect from idnet
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=313ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=319ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=309ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=336ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=358ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=364ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=350ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=325ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=334ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=351ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=348ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=384ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=334ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=339ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=336ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=346ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=335ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=370ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=352ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=369ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=346ms TTL=60
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 23, Received = 23, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 309ms, Maximum = 384ms, Average = 343ms
Control-C
^C
My pings are also like that currently :(
And as usual leave it 5 mins or so & u get
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 18, Received = 18, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 30ms, Average = 24ms
Control-C
^C
This really needs sorting out , this kind of instability really isnt good enough service for the price.
^^
My pings are now 100ms...there always over 50ms but range from about 60ms to 300ms.
Well the problem I have with obtaining a mac & moving is finding an isp that isnt forcing the max package on me , on of the reasons I came here was that I could keep my fixed rate 2mb line & avoid the max problems, line is stable & fast enough for what I need, everywhere I look they either want a 12 month contract or they only offer the max packages :-\
Lots of ISP's offer the usual IPstream services (fixed) such as AOL (ring for a monthly contact!), UKFSN (Enta), Demon and others!
AOL I tried a long while back & it wasnt for me, Demon I wouldnt go anywhere near after reading adslguide forums, but yes enta looks promising if a little expensive, I'll wait to see how you get on with that one, think thats the one you are moving to on the 26th, in the meantime I emailed Zen to see if I can get on a fixed line with them, I know they still have it running for existing customers but couldnt see any sign up for new ones for it, but I do have a few friends using that isp without any ping issues.
Guys,
I hope you have been relaying all these symptoms and test results back to IDNet CS ? This is all grist to the mill for them in investigating and (hopefully) resolving this ongoing debacle ?
S
good point scott
email support@idnet.net with anything you feel is useful
All stable here still at present :)
Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:14ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 17ms
Friad i cant tell till i get home...reset router to factory settings last night...didnt set IGMP rule!
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping idnet.co.uk
Pinging idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=60
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 = 152ms, Average = 146ms
Silly me, fancy trying to use your BB before all the business users have gone home ???
Judging from my l8c graph, I've just missed a rather bad spot. Things are better now, but still somewhat variable:-
Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:34ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:68ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:43ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:39ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:25ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:68ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:70ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:58ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 70ms, Average = 32ms
As you can see my Pings are stable again, i just need the interleaving turning off and i will be back in low ping land ;D
Pinging www.idnet.net with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:44ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:44ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:44ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:44ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:44ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:44ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:44ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:44ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Ping statistics for www.idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 44ms, Maximum = 47ms, Average = 45ms
I cant comment. Didnt get l8nc working/didnt until about 5 this afternoon, didnt do tracert until about this time also...when things seemed fine.
Doing reverse pings at the moment as I'm at work, but it amounts to the same thing. At 9.30am, things were looking very good:-
PING 212.69.58.58 (212.69.58.58): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=5 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=6 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=7 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=8 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=9 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=10 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=11 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=12 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=13 ttl=51 time=15 ms
----212.69.58.58 PING Statistics----
14 packets transmitted, 14 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max/med = 15/15/15/15
But half an hour later, as the business day gets under way:-
$ ping 212.69.58.58
PING 212.69.58.58 (212.69.58.58): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=29 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=27 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=26 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=30 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=35 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=5 ttl=51 time=35 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=6 ttl=51 time=22 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=7 ttl=51 time=29 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=8 ttl=51 time=24 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=9 ttl=51 time=39 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=10 ttl=51 time=24 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=11 ttl=51 time=53 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=12 ttl=51 time=51 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=13 ttl=51 time=34 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=14 ttl=51 time=29 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=15 ttl=51 time=29 ms
----212.69.58.58 PING Statistics----
16 packets transmitted, 16 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max/med = 22/32/53/29
Not it's still not bad, but is a significant depreciation from the previous one for just a half hour change. Will continue to monitor it.
It appears to be fixed my end...typical.
has been 130ms for the last 4hours here :(
AvengerUK , did u say you are moving to Enta on the 26th I just read this over at adslguide forums;
"In relation to your original question about traffic shaping I think you have been slightly misled.
Enta do traffic shape but its only noticeable when they are short on capacity.
Traffic shaping showed up a few months ago. Enta & UKFSN denied it for some considerable time but eventually admitted it.
Boggits stated Here
In reply to:
The long terms goal is to find a solution that provides QoS so that real time traffic (eg VoIP/Citrix) is preffered over non-time sensitive (eg NNTP/p2p) BUT with the clear intent that this is to improve the end user experience rather than squeezing additional revenue by 'saving' bandwidth."
I seem to remember you being a wow player unless I'm thinking of someone else , if so then that is real trouble as I experienced on Plusnet when they introduced it, with crazy pings inside the BG's & disconnects very very similar to what Nildram have had for the last 6 months.
Yes - its no bother to me. I dont need fast speeds should Enta's QOS system come into place again. I have a freind who is on enta, and was with enta during these issues/when QOS was enabled, and the problems were neither here or there, nothing in comparison to IDnet's recent ping issues anyway. - Plus, ill be on a Office product (Premuim)
@ Equk - sorry to hear that, im sure come monday my pings will rise again - must just be a lucky day for me today ;)
Quote from: Rolacka on Sep 22, 2006, 12:47:33I seem to remember you being a wow player unless I'm thinking of someone else , if so then that is real trouble as I experienced on Plusnet when they introduced it, with crazy pings inside the BG's & disconnects very very similar to what Nildram have had for the last 6 months.
I played WoW on plusnet and had no problems at all ???
As does my bro. I stopped playing ages ago but my bro still plays and had no problems at all when on plusnet?
I'm not sure people should be talking about other ISPs on idnet's support forum. Even tho it is unofficial.
Quote from: equk on Sep 22, 2006, 12:54:08
Quote from: Rolacka on Sep 22, 2006, 12:47:33I seem to remember you being a wow player unless I'm thinking of someone else , if so then that is real trouble as I experienced on Plusnet when they introduced it, with crazy pings inside the BG's & disconnects very very similar to what Nildram have had for the last 6 months.
I played WoW on plusnet and had no problems at all ???
As does my bro. I stopped playing ages ago but my bro still plays and had no problems at all when on plusnet?
I'm not sure people should be talking about other ISPs on idnet's support forum. Even tho it is unofficial.
Course we can....were not exactly recommending them are we? everything above and in the whole forum (mostly) is just opinions ;)
Still variable here:-
Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:38ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:25ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:87ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:73ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:68ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:74ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:54ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:59ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:80ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:89ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:76ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:53ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:39ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:69ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:248
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 89ms, Average = 42ms
Pings just went thru the roof again for me =/
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=304ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=245ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=284ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=296ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=291ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=252ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=232ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=225ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=60
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 19, Received = 19, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 209ms, Maximum = 304ms, Average = 267ms
Control-C
Yeah, they're none too impressive here now, either (and l8nc suggests they were even worse earlier):- :(
Pinging 212.69.58.58 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:37ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:42ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:84ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:81ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:78ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:114ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:85ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:80ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:88ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:89ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:103ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:111ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:94ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:111ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:125ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:166ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:138ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:122ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:116ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:108ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:114ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:93ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:59ms TTL:51
Ping statistics for 212.69.58.58 :
Packets: Sent = 27, Received = 27, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 166ms, Average = 88ms
According to my pingplotter , its started at around 1:40 pm peaking over 300 ms sustained for around 30 mins at 1:55 pm & it stayed that way til 2:25 pm approx when it then dropped back down again.
Indeed i saw the same here too.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Seems clear to me this isnt an exchange problem it clearly is pointing to idnet's setup, your graph looks exactly like the one I just emailed to simon.
Quote from: Rolacka on Sep 22, 2006, 15:24:17
According to my pingplotter , its started at around 1:40 pm peaking over 300 ms sustained for around 30 mins at 1:55 pm & it stayed that way til 2:25 pm approx when it then dropped back down again.
Yes, that's pretty much what my l8nc graph shows as well (except a lower mean value; and the l8nc times are GMT so they show up as an hour earlier, but refer to the same real time).
Quote from: Rolacka on Sep 22, 2006, 16:09:51
Seems clear to me this isnt an exchange problem it clearly is pointing to idnet's setup, your graph looks exactly like the one I just emailed to simon.
Oh, we know it's not an exchange problem; in fact, it seems almost certain to me that it's actually a BT Colossus network routing problem. Unfortunately, that network is shrouded in such secrecy, and BTW have such a culture of denial, that it will be nigh on impossible to convince them to even take a look it at.
EDIT: While I'm here:-
Pinging 212.69.58.58 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:74ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:79ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:119ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:118ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:109ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:90ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:133ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:123ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:120ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:131ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:138ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:108ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:107ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:103ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:100ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:96ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:63ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:73ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:73ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:54ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:48ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:54ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:34ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:25ms TTL:51
Ping statistics for 212.69.58.58 :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 138ms, Average = 78ms
Well if thats the case I am now back in the same situation as I was in with Nildram for 3 months as far as trying to play wow, this isp can keep me connected but at the cost of a +400 ms ping during the day while playing, wonderful :'(
Quote from: equk on Sep 22, 2006, 12:42:34
has been 130ms for the last 4hours here :(
Have you tried turning the router off for 30 mins then trying again?
Never mind mis read that last one & no it serves no purpose unless you have a stale session, my pings are back to normal for daytime now
Quote from: Rolacka on Sep 22, 2006, 17:01:13
Never mind mis read that last one & no it serves no purpose unless you have a stale session, my pings are back to normal for daytime now
When i had my first day with bad pings i was advised by CS to turn the router off for 30 mins , i did this and when i connected again i got my usual low pings, i have used this method a few times and its always worked.
The workers have gone home now, and all is well again:-
Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.78 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:248
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 15, Received = 15, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 16ms
Fine all day, no problems. And now:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=169ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=247
Ping statistics for 212.58.228.155:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 157ms, Maximum = 172ms, Average = 166ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>ping bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.155] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.228.155: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=247
Ping statistics for 212.58.228.155:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 149ms, Maximum = 179ms, Average = 162ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 22, 2006, 19:27:57
Fine all day, no problems. And now:
<snip>
Fine all day? Have you seen your l8nc graph? It didn't look good from about 2pm onwards.
lol...didnt notice, was on guild wars ::)
lol, fair enough. :D
:(I,m fed up with this ping thread, it tends to infiltrate all the other threads and makes the forums a rather depressing place to be sometimes.
I have a very stable and fast connection witih no problems so I must be either very lucky or one of the many very satisfied clients of IDNet. They are a very good ISp and extremely rliabel, friendly and efficient.
2 fanboy points to me , I think ;D
That must be cue for another ping test:- :P
Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.126 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 17, Received = 17, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 22ms, Average = 18ms
Looking good here, it being a weekend.
Quote from: cavillas on Sep 23, 2006, 15:11:12
:(I,m fed up with this ping thread, it tends to infiltrate all the other threads and makes the forums a rather depressing place to be sometimes.
Don't read the ping thread its not compulsory and you know whats going to be in there.
QuoteI have a very stable and fast connection witih no problems so I must be either very lucky or one of the many very satisfied clients of IDNet. They are a very good ISp and extremely rliabel, friendly and efficient.
Good for you , i wonder what YOU would do if you suddenly got really high pings for no apparent reason after months of having a rock steady connection, would you post your pings here hoping someone might have the answer? i think so.
No one here has ever said IDNet are not a great ISP with the best customer support out there, when i got a load of grief off my last ISP Freedom2Surf (sorry for reminding all the X F2S users here of the bad times) i was off like a shot as i had passed my 12 months so could leave when i wanted to.
Have you noticed of all the people with problems there is only one who has got his MAC , the rest of us are hanging on hoping WE can sort it out ,no one wants to leave a good ISP !(we are communicating with CS all the time trying to sort it).
Cav next time you feel you need to spout sit back for a moment and think about what you are going to type ;)
Chill guys, chilllll :police:
Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 23, 2006, 17:48:20
Chill guys, chilllll :police:
I'm so chilled I'm frozen solid ;D
Quote from: maxping on Sep 23, 2006, 15:49:36
i wonder what YOU would do if you suddenly got really high pings for no apparent reason
I have, and they have had no effect on my connection or other internet use. So I see no problem. But then again I don't play games on my computer, I actually use it with real applications in my occupation and spare time. :)
As do most of us. Have you ever tried to use a remote desktop with a ping of 150ms ? Its bloody hard work let me tell you. :)
Quote from: cavillas on Sep 23, 2006, 20:05:44
Quote from: maxping on Sep 23, 2006, 15:49:36
i wonder what YOU would do if you suddenly got really high pings for no apparent reason
I have, and they have had no effect on my connection or other internet use. So I see no problem. But then again I don't play games on my computer, I actually use it with real applications in my occupation and spare time. :)
lol ::) :-X
'real apps' :D
Ping times effect more than just gaming. Also a high ping is an indication of a possible problem.
I guess the
'real apps' would be a web browser and a email client ??? ::) :P
high horse?
Quote from: equk on Sep 23, 2006, 22:51:36
Ping times effect more than just gaming.
Only when used incorrectly. The ping command is intended
solely to test whether a remote device is active or not, any other use is outside the specification.
QuoteCav next time you feel you need to spout sit back for a moment and think about what you are going to type
Dez, keep these sort of comments to yourself. Rick has an opinion just as you do ... first and only warning to others contemplating any other personal attacks. I have pulled this one out only because it was the last one posted yet I see others in there.
I have left this topic open longer than anyone can bear ... I have had 24 PMs from individuals to close it but I feel that so long as it is on track and pertains to the subject, leave it as we don`t go for censorship here but y`all, think about the quality of content please ;)
Quote from: Jeff on Sep 24, 2006, 02:25:12
I have left this topic open longer than anyone can bear ... I have had 24 PMs from individuals to close it but I feel that so long as it is on track and pertains to the subject, leave it as we don`t go for censorship here but y`all, think about the quality of content please ;)
Surely if it's still an issue for some people, then the thread needs to be kept open until someone posts conclusively that it's been resolved.
I know it's stating the blindingly obvious, but you don't have to read it if it doesn't affect you.
drummer, don`t quote me, especially when I`d already said that I was leaving the post open ... your reply added nowt! ;)
I`m very close to gettin` the cricket bat out ;)
I was just supporting your view. Tch!
Quote
keep these sort of comments to yourself.
Jeff the reason i made the comment is I'm sick of the "it makes no difference to gaming" and other comments that have basically said "what are you lot moaning about".
To the people here who are having problems this is serious, we have already lost Avenger over this and i also asked for my MAC,i was persuaded by Simon to hang on a bit longer to see if things could be sorted out.
How many other customers have left that do not use this forum?
We seem to be going round in circles which is very annoying , i have been told its contention at the exchange,i live in a small town with 1 exchange ,when i get high pings i get my brother and mother to ping idnet for me and they have low pings , how can they have low pings at the same time mine are high?
I have also noticed the high pings only show during work hours so if its not my exchange then it must be idnets end and is it a coincidence they are a business based isp?
As i have already said i think idnet are a great isp with the best cs but at the end of the day if i cannot get a decent ping which i always got until approx 2 months ago what options do i have?
Do the 24 people that pm'd you about closing the thread want a ban on all negative threads ?
Quote from: Bill on Sep 24, 2006, 01:16:28
Quote from: equk on Sep 23, 2006, 22:51:36
Ping times effect more than just gaming.
Only when used incorrectly. The ping command is intended solely to test whether a remote device is active or not, any other use is outside the specification.
Soz I was saying about what ping represents. All this cr*p is getting stupid. Ping might not be what is effecting something, but as I have said many times before it is used as an INDICATION of a problem.
I have not implied ping IS the problem ??? :-[ all this smug cr*p about "ping isn't this ping isn't that" doesn't help.
We've been through it a few times on other threads and bringing it up over and over is as annoying as the internet explorer threads.
I think maybe I typed it wrong earlier or it was taken out of context but nvm who cares?
I think this thread is a mess. Right from the start, making a thread about ping problems was going to be a mess, given the amount of different problems and effecting factors.
eg: My first thread about routing was closed and that problem got merged into this thread along with the other problems.
I think the thread is getting messed up. Not by the people who actually DO have ping problems, but by the constant posting of other people. The "this thread is getting me down" or "my conn is fine". Surely if you don't have a problem with ping times you shouldn't even be posting on this thread??
There are also the people who seem to start arguments over nothing.
Seriously, this is a SUPPORT thread. If people would realise that and keep it on topic, maybe it wouldn't be so long, but also it would be easier to understand.
I'm sure Simon has a hard job trying to find any relevant information from it, given the amount of arguments and un-needed comments posted. ::) :-*
And you think moaning about it is going to fix any thing your post is just as bad as
QuoteThe "this thread is getting me down" or "my conn is fine".
This thread should be locked
Well I have abysmal PL at the moment although the ping is oki in between, go ahead lock the thread if u want I'll move to Adslguide / Ispreview forums, pretty sure Simon reads those too :o
Quote from: browney on Sep 24, 2006, 13:54:52
And you think moaning about it is going to fix any thing your post is just as bad as
Posting trace results and latency graphs may actually help get to the bottom of the problem.
If you don't want to read this why do you enter this forum or are you just after a argument?
You say this thread should be locked, i say stay out if you don't like what you read.
If you read the whole thread you would see I no longer post much in this thread if you want to continue this PM as you're cluttering this thread
Why not have a sticky thread for graphs and a sticky for tracer's/pings then Simon would easily be able to see the data instead of having to go through pages of comments
Ok, i dont think posting any more graphs etc. here is going to help, as we have all guessed at the problem and im sure we will accomplish more by sending any concerns to support@idnet.net or help@idnet.net
Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 24, 2006, 15:22:53
Ok, i dont think posting any more graphs etc. here is going to help, as we have all guessed at the problem and im sure we will accomplish more by sending any concerns to support@idnet.net or help@idnet.net
I agree but if we do not mention that its still ongoing we are all going to think the problem has passed.
I would hate to view the forums and think great IDNet are just what im after as a gamer only to find after joining that some days the pings are through the roof .
The thread server a purpose in my view and gives potential customers a bit of a warning.
how about, putting a announcement up with a subtle warning that this could be a possible problem but could equally not. and keep "harrassing" customer support and simon directly through idnet? afterall this is unofficial and i feel more will be accomplished via idnet
I have been in contact with idnet directly. Mainly talking to Simon about the problem but I have been posting pings and traceroute's as and when problems occur so they are timestamped. Also so Simon can look at the thread and see who has the problems and when they have the problems.
It also means Simons inbox doesn't get full of traceroutes etc. Having a support forum does help as everyone can see what's going on and post their own problems.
A few times I've spoke to or had emails from Simon starting with him saying "I've been following your threads on the forum..." So posting here does make a difference and is actively monitored/viewed by IDNet support.
Quote from: equk on Sep 24, 2006, 16:57:06
A few times I've spoke to or had emails from Simon starting with him saying "I've been following your threads on the forum..." So posting here does make a difference and is actively monitored/viewed by IDNet support.
Absolutely right Eq ! I know for a fact Simon is regularly in here casting an eye over things. There's already a thread from Simon asking for people to post their latest pings to IDNet.net...that's an excellent way to provide the CS & TS team with required feedback and that sort of thread should be kept just for that porpoise.
Remember the occasional posts we'd see on AG forums..."MD of 'unnamed ISP' - please reply" - I guess those were born out of desperation ! First port of call is always CS either by phone or email...posting specifically to a thread asking for a reply is a bit like a message in a bottle ;D (Cue The Police running through your head for the rest of the day) ;D
This thread has taken on a life of it's own (> 500 posts on it last time I checked !) and I [and t'other mods] haven't seen any need to nudge things back on track ! Keep it up guys - it's all good stuff.
10am, and all's quiet:- :)
Pinging 212.69.58.58 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Ping statistics for 212.69.58.58 :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 22ms
Yep - also no issues on my end :) - man ill be annoyed if its indeed fixed considering i migrate tomorrow :(
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 25, 2006, 10:04:15
Yep - also no issues on my end :) - man ill be annoyed if its indeed fixed considering i migrate tomorrow :(
Oh, I don't think it is. It was the usual story on weekdays all last week (albeit they were a bit late to the office on Friday ;D), and fine on Saturday (yesterday was obviously a special case), so I'm fully expecting the usual pattern this afternoon. But I'm always open to pleasant surprises! :)
problem is back again....
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 0.697 ms 0.675 ms 0.654 ms
2 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 2.618 ms 2.782 ms *
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 99.970 ms 94.394 ms 96.086 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 101.014 ms 91.912 ms 93.620 ms
5 212.69.63.5 (212.69.63.5) 95.856 ms 90.872 ms 99.034 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 93.643 ms 89.098 ms 85.438 ms
Quote from: equk on Sep 25, 2006, 12:38:58
problem is back again....
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 cisco (192.168.1.1) 0.697 ms 0.675 ms 0.654 ms
2 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 2.618 ms 2.782 ms *
3 telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45) 99.970 ms 94.394 ms 96.086 ms
4 telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9) 101.014 ms 91.912 ms 93.620 ms
5 212.69.63.5 (212.69.63.5) 95.856 ms 90.872 ms 99.034 ms
6 www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 93.643 ms 89.098 ms 85.438 ms
Not for me atm, although my graph is starting to show a steady rise in average pings with some small blue spikes...but nothing anyway near your results - i suspect if i reboot my router things may be different!
Spoke to soon....*click l8nc graph*
You'll have to post some from your new ISP.
I will do indeed - hopefully it'll help CS to sort the problem out for u guys ;) - it'll also be my last post :( - dont want to keep posting here after ive left like a "cheeky git" :P
Well remember and stay in touch Avenger...anything you can provide that helps identify issues for CS will always be useful ?
Quote from: Scott on Sep 26, 2006, 09:34:42
Well remember and stay in touch Avenger...anything you can provide that helps identify issues for CS will always be useful ?
Of course - i hope to post some pings later (3pm ish), atm im at college thus cant change my login details! - Im hoping that my pings with Idnet today rise as they did yesterday, so i can have a "Before and after" ping, which would be more usefull to CS :)
Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 26, 2006, 09:44:01
Of course - i hope to post some pings later (3pm ish), atm im at college thus cant change my login details! - Im hoping that my pings with Idnet today rise as they did yesterday, so i can have a "Before and after" ping, which would be more usefull to CS :)
So of course, it looks completely fine today. :D ::)
Mine looks pretty good too, just as it did yesterday:-
Pinging 212.69.58.58 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:25ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:22ms TTL:47
Ping statistics for 212.69.58.58 :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 23ms
I wonder if the telehouse outage on Sunday did something, as mine has been fine since (and was not on the more recent weekday previous to it). I'll give it a few more days yet, and we'll see.
Now on Enta :) - pings:
18ms stable ON EVERY HOP to multiplay
Stable 19ms to my server's...
well, im happy happy happy!
Nice one Avenger , can you show us a latency graph?
Dez, with ref to your reply my last post in here (go back a few pages!), fair enough but no personals man. ;)
I second Scott, it`s on track and Simon is keeping a record ... in fact, see the new thread I`m starting, maybe more apt for some :)
Quote from: Jeff on Sep 26, 2006, 22:25:14
Dez, with ref to your reply my last post in here (go back a few pages!), fair enough but no personals man. ;)
OK no probs.
I have recently noticed that my l8nc graphs regularly look very poor during the day and so I looked in here to see if it was acommon problem and found this thread. - I have now read most of it.
This is home line that is unused during the day so poor daytime ping do not effect anyone and evening performance is great. But surely it should not be like this.
Here is one typical l8nc plot.
http://212.69.55.123/l8nc250906.png (http://212.69.55.123/l8nc250906.png)
I am a smallish rural exchange 2300 residential lines, 200 business lines.
I have no idea if this is BT exchange contention or not.
Tim
It isn't exchange contention; you can demostrate this for your own connection by logging in to the BT test login, which would exhibit the same high pings if it were. This isn't surprising, since the problem affects a number of people on different exchanges, and also the problem does not correspond to typical exchage traffic patterns (i.e. if it were exchange contention, it would actually be worse in the evenings, not disappear).
It may be a coincidence but it starts at 9 a.m when most businesses open.
Send it to customer support & next time it happens switch the router off for at least 30 mins then try it again.
Quote from: maxping on Sep 27, 2006, 00:42:24
It may be a coincidence but it starts at 9 a.m when most businesses open.
Send it to customer support , next time it happens switch the router off for at least 30 mins then try it again.
I think the hours are too regular, along with the absence of the problem at weekends as well, to be a coincidence. It seems very clearly business related, and it's also on either the BT Colossus network or the IDNet Fat Pipes (though quite unlikely to be latter due to traffic patterns as well, unless IDNet have pipes specifically for business customers that are showing high contention, in which case I'd be surprised if they hadn't received a fair number of complaints from the businesses).
I only have records since last Wednesday.
But Wednesday, Thursday. Friday last week and Mon Tues this week were bad during the working day, but Sat Sun were fine.
Another line I have with IDNET is fine all the time.
Tim.
Quote from: karvala on Sep 27, 2006, 00:46:46
It seems very clearly business related, and it's also on either the BT Colossus network or the IDNet Fat Pipes
I had quite a long talk with Simon tonight and he explained the basics to me and did say they think its the BT Colossus network thats causing the problem.
(at least i think thats what he said)
/covers back nicely ;)
As you can see from the graph in the other thread mine is fairly stable at the moment and has been for a few days,i am going to get the wife to do a few ping tests during the day to compare them to the evening pings.
Thanx for the input Tim ... feel free to post your specific problems experienced in the new post, pinned to the top ;)
Hey, some could say that the ping problem might not lie with IDNet as all lines/users aren`t affected. Not me however, I sometimes see the ping spike ... it just doesn`t affect me ;)
When i get high pings its not the spikes that bother me its not getting a ping below 150+ ms in 30 hops.
Here are some more l8nc plots - all 5 weekdays showing very poor daytime performance but generally fine during the evening, nights and weekends.
Thursday 21st is particularly bad.
http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060919.png (http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060919.png)
http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060920.png (http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060920.png)
http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060921.png (http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060921.png)
http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060922.png (http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060922.png)
http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060925.png (http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060925.png)
The 2 weekend plots are OK.
http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060923.png (http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060923.png)
http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060924.png (http://212.69.55.123/l8nc060924.png)
As the line is basically unused during the day, I can't say that it is effecting me but it does not look correct.
Tim
Yeah, they're characteristic graphs of the problem, Tim.
On a more cheerful note, things continue to look fine here:-
Pinging 212.69.63.45 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:14ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:14ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:254
Reply from 212.69.63.45 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:254
Ping statistics for 212.69.63.45 :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 18ms, Average = 16ms
Hi TimJ
Do you have any l8nc plots for your other line? The one where you said: "Another line I have with IDNET is fine all the time."
Cheers
Simon
Quote from: TimJ on Sep 27, 2006, 12:26:38
Here are some more l8nc plots
As the line is basically unused during the day, I can't say that it is effecting me but it does not look correct.
Tim
Tim have you tried turning the router off for 30 mins as advised by customer support when you see the high pings?
Happy Days ;D
Pinging www.idnet.net with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:25ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:25ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:25ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:25ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:60
Ping statistics for www.idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 30ms, Average = 27ms
Quote from: simon on Sep 27, 2006, 17:27:11
Hi TimJ
Do you have any l8nc plots for your other line? The one where you said: "Another line I have with IDNET is fine all the time."
Cheers
Simon
Simon,
Sorry I was was not clear in that statement. The other line is at different premices on a different exchange. I don't have any back record of l8nc on the other line but i have just turned on email of l8nc results, so a record will build up.
There is a linux box running 24/7 on the "problem" line so if would help if I monitored anything let me know.
Today l8nc plot looks pretty well perfect with low pings all day.
Tim
hmm nice ping atm :( not
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms cisco [192.168.1.1]
2 3 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.0.1
3 122 ms 114 ms 108 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
4 110 ms 105 ms 109 ms telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
5 236 ms 145 ms 143 ms 212.69.63.5
I think it would be helpful if when posting bad ping results we also said if we have tried turning the router off for 30 mins as suggested by customer support.
I always try this when i have bad pings and it usually works , having said that i have had good pings day and night for a few days now.
Pinging www.idnet.net with 32 bytes of data:
Ping statistics for www.idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 27ms
Just checked my L8NC graph and again its just about flat and the green line is running at approx 30 ms. ;D