Ping time majorly out

[Gary]

Their users probably aren't noticing the difference.

[Sebby]

The BBC need to see what there iPlayer is doing, I use it myself and its great like the Glastonbury clips, but not to watch live tennis and drag the UK's internet down with it 

I really don't think BBC are to blame. Services like iPlayer are the future. It's BT and their total lack of investment in their network.

[Lance]

I agree. The fact is that Internet users are using their connections in a way permitted by their ISP and for which they pay. If the ISPs and BT can't cope then they need to invest and stop overselling capacity by so much.

[Ninny]

My ping has never been very good with IDnet, I use to get 40-50 ping on BT, since being on IDnet generally I get 60-70. But last few days its been shooting up to 200 most games, today it's at a constant 200. Needless to say it means gaming is pointless.

[tomharrison]

Things have gone wonky again...

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 157ms, Maximum = 183ms, Average = 167ms

Good ol' Wimbledon!

[Turin]

They certainly have..

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 133ms, Maximum = 174ms, Average = 155ms 

[idnetbarry]

Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 105ms, Maximum = 153ms, Average = 134ms

Not good

[Steve]

Murray's on now so  interested to see if it gets worse shortly.

[Mohux_Jnr]

 I am afraid I do not buy into the tennis theory, the pings for me at least, have never been right since the upgrade with daily reboots required around 4pm every day in order to stabilise or reduce a steadily increasing ping.
Maybe someone can explain to me if it is down to congestion as many people suggest, why was I not affected pre-upgrade?. I can set my watch by the daily fluctuations ever since.

I am currently running ping graph and I am getting jumps from 16-171 in one hop, for gamers IDNET has become non-viable unless you play throughout the night, and although the tennis may be having some adverse affect, this problem has been on-going for alot longer than 2 weeks.

NETGRAPH at the moment looks like the Pyrenees, even after 6 reboots.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Ninny]

I, too, do not believe this Wimbledon theory. Sounds like an excuse to me, we didn't have this during Obama's Inaguration or when Jacko died? Surely there would have been country wide use of online streams etc at the time? My ping were fluctuating badly well after the tennis had finished last night so it doesn't tie in at all.

[Bill]

I, too, do not believe this Wimbledon theory. Sounds like an excuse to me, we didn't have this during Obama's Inaguration or when Jacko died? Surely there would have been country wide use of online streams etc at the time? My ping were fluctuating badly well after the tennis had finished last night so it doesn't tie in at all.

From Metronet_James, the isp rep on the tbb PlusNet forum:

Guys - We've got about 2Gbps of traffic from iPlayer currently.

That's 2/7ths of our Network capacity. Now is not a great time to be testing latency.

Direct link for those interested:

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/plusnet/t/3660379-timeouts.html

[tomharrison]

Looks like throughput is being affected too:

 

This must be the slowest speed I've ever recorded since my exchange was congested over four years ago

[karser]

Another one on gw5 with screwed up pings, between the new central pipe, bt constantly disconnecting me to fiddle with their exchange, & now this I'm getting a bit bloody sick of it   This has been happening for the last few days & no amount of router reboots fixes it, or if it does it never lasts for more than a few seconds before its high again.

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 165ms, Maximum = 177ms, Average = 171ms

[Aaron]

Bad here also:

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=169ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 169ms, Maximum = 184ms, Average = 174ms

[Ted]

Here's my contest entry 

[ted@Zeus ~]$ ping www.idnet.net -c 10
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=184 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=182 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=186 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=166 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=176 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=184 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=190 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=205 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=188 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=186 ms

--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9197ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 166.530/185.056/205.880/9.521 ms

[Steve]

My pings have in the last 30 mins gone up and are erratic again Ping has started ...

PING idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=140.027 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=62.405 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=114.212 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=161.715 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=182.035 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=177.594 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=129.213 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=148.680 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=114.429 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=111.457 ms

--- idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 62.405/134.177/182.035/34.145 ms


The excuse last year towards the end of August was the Olympics ,however the problem remained afterwards. Idnet eventually admitted then that there were  congestion problems on their network and to their credit it was eventually resolved. It is frustrating as we end up in a guessing game, surely idnet are aware of these issues and are probably working hard to resolve them but the network status page states "all is well" which it clearly isn't for some users.

Having been with idnet for 18 months now, they do seem to take great pride in their network performance and so far most of these issues have been eventually resolved in time. I do worry that the more "expensive" adsl max service may be allowed to slide now ADSL2+ is here.Time will tell, its only a month's notice anyway, me I'll sit tight for awhile if it persists I'll complain to support and take it from there.

[Bill]

Well it's not universal:

PING idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=19.551 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=19.508 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=18.997 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=18.660 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=18.917 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=19.087 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=19.538 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=19.020 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=19.009 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=19.463 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=18.405 ms
^C
--- idnet.net ping statistics ---
11 packets transmitted, 11 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 18.405/19.105/19.551/0.360 ms

Which if anything are about 5msec lower than usual...

[Steve]

Bill, you are ADSL2+ I believe . Confirms my worries about adsl max becoming the poor relation

[karser]

Seems speed is affect too now:

http://www.speedtest.net/result/509418385.png

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results/id/1246635090121672620.html

[karser]

Just got a reply from idnet:

This is almost certainly due to the exceptionally high traffic levels being caused by iPlayer viewing of Wimbledon this afternoon. We know that we are seeing higher than normal traffic and that the BBC site is under very heavy load and that some Exchanges are now congested.

Wth is this supposed to mean? are they actually going to do anything about it or just fob us off with an excuse?

[Bill]

Just got a reply from idnet:

This is almost certainly due to the exceptionally high traffic levels being caused by iPlayer viewing of Wimbledon this afternoon. We know that we are seeing higher than normal traffic and that the BBC site is under very heavy load and that some Exchanges are now congested.

Wth is this supposed to mean? are they actually going to do anything about it or just fob us off with an excuse?

Which "they" are you referring to? IDNet, BT or the BBC?

[Steve]

Perhaps I'd like to believe that if the BT exchanges are congested there's nothing idnet can do about it.If you see Bill's figures on adsl2+ there's no congestion there.

[glen]

I'm ready to join the club aswell, my pings are completely up the left

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

C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>ping www.bbc.co.uk

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.251.195] with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 212.58.251.195:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>ping www.idnet.com

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 181ms, Maximum = 196ms, Average = 191ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>ping www.jolt.co.uk

Pinging www.jolt.co.uk [84.234.17.86] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=208ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=191ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 84.234.17.86:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 182ms, Maximum = 209ms, Average = 197ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>ping www.yahoo.co.uk

Pinging www.euro.fyeu.b.yahoo.com [217.146.186.51] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.146.186.51: bytes=32 time=208ms TTL=57
Reply from 217.146.186.51: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=57
Reply from 217.146.186.51: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=57
Reply from 217.146.186.51: bytes=32 time=208ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 217.146.186.51:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 165ms, Maximum = 208ms, Average = 191ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>^V

[Simon]

Just got a reply from idnet:

This is almost certainly due to the exceptionally high traffic levels being caused by iPlayer viewing of Wimbledon this afternoon. We know that we are seeing higher than normal traffic and that the BBC site is under very heavy load and that some Exchanges are now congested.

Wth is this supposed to mean? are they actually going to do anything about it or just fob us off with an excuse?

To be fair, IDNet have told you the reason for the problem.  I don't call that being 'fobbed off'.  IDNet are a small ISP, and although I have no idea of their business structure, I would imagine that the expense of making additional provisions for events such as Wimbledon, would be prohibitive to doing so, especially on a 'temporary' basis.  I bet if Andy Murray gets knocked out, latency will improve again. 

[glen]

Well I'm away to watch the tennis on Iplayer if you cant beat them join them