This seems a bit odd frankly!

[Simon_idnet]

We've set some prepends on the routes that our routers hear to YouTube and PhotoBucket so that Cogent is no longer preferred (while they fix their problems). We are now seeing that traffic flow through our peering with Level3 instead.

Cheers
Simon

[Lance]

Hopefully that will sort the problems!

[MoHux]

Hopefully that will sort the problems!

Pinging s163.photobucket.com [66.11.56.69] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 66.11.56.69: bytes=32 time=1224ms TTL=244
Reply from 66.11.56.69: bytes=32 time=1215ms TTL=244
Reply from 66.11.56.69: bytes=32 time=1179ms TTL=244
Reply from 66.11.56.69: bytes=32 time=1158ms TTL=244

Ping statistics for 66.11.56.69:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1158ms, Maximum = 1224ms, Average = 1194ms

Nope!  'pears not. 

[Rik]

Similar result here, Mo, but the routing has clearly changed from last night:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
  2    26 ms    22 ms    20 ms  telehouse-gw3-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
  3    27 ms    23 ms    23 ms  redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
  4    24 ms    25 ms    30 ms  213.228.216.33
  5    43 ms    40 ms    59 ms  ae-19-53.ebr1.London1.Level3.net [4.68.116.94]
  6    27 ms    32 ms    33 ms  ae-1-100.ebr2.London1.Level3.net [4.69.132.118]
  7    99 ms    93 ms   107 ms  ae-4.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net [4.69.132.109]
  8    93 ms   108 ms   111 ms  ae-1-100.ebr2.NewYork1.Level3.net [4.69.132.26]
  9   136 ms     *        *     ae-2.ebr1.Chicago1.Level3.net [4.69.132.65]
10   141 ms   137 ms   146 ms  ae-3.ebr2.Denver1.Level3.net [4.69.132.61]
11   143 ms   161 ms   166 ms  ae-21-56.car1.Denver1.Level3.net [4.68.107.166]
12  1141 ms  1176 ms  1221 ms  PHOTOBUCKET.car1.Denver1.Level3.net [4.79.80.142]
13  1196 ms  1216 ms  1184 ms  66.11.50.5

[CaptainSlow]

Yes, Simon has had a good go at improving it, had some good effect on it already too, and I've got to get some more figures for him later, who knows what he might find he can do once he's had a look over them.

He's done as much as he can and then some. It's not all fixed yet, but there is some serious progress being made. Much better than things were over the last few days in all respects.

It's a pretty daft situation really, I've been done some sniffing around in other places and found out that cogentco do have a bit of a rep for getting a lot out of their hardware before investing in enough of it, so it's not something trivial to be up against! 

I'll maybe get onto the news provider and photbucket and rattle their cages about it too in the next 24 hours as pressure on cogentco from that end too would do no harm at all. If those finding You Tube service similarly poor went that route as well then Cogentco would probably find themselves having a note or two sent to them by You Tube and quite possibly Google too, and that really could not hurt in getting some further remedial action going either!

Oh well, we must just wait and see where it goes apart from all that.

I have to say I was impressed by IDNet's part in all this, it was quite reassuring. Not used to seeing that from an ISP. Feels weird but so much better! 

[Rik]

I have to say I was impressed by IDNet's part in all this, it was quite reassuring. Not used to seeing that from an ISP. Feels weird but so much better! 

After a while, you get used to it, but it explains why we're generally such a happy lot.

[CaptainSlow]

After a while, you get used to it, but it explains why we're generally such a happy lot.

Hehe, yeah, what I have become used to is refusal to be interested at all and where ever possible, and, when doing something about it is contractually unavoidable, delay to the point of making it all as painful as possible for the customer or better still, for all concerned. 

All of which is some distance away from this situation!

It may well take a bit of getting used to.

[Rik]

Persevere, it's worth it. 

[Glenn]

I get similar speeds to what I got yesterday

Hop  IP Address       Host Name                              Sent   Recv      RTT   Av RTT  Min RTT  Max RTT   % Loss

1    192.168.0.1      [Unknown]                                 1      1    40 ms    40 ms    40 ms    40 ms   0.000%
2    xxx.xx.xxx.xx     telehouse-gw3-msdp.idnet.net              1      1    40 ms    40 ms    40 ms    40 ms   0.000%
3    212.69.63.1      redbus-gw.idnet.net                       1      1    40 ms    40 ms    40 ms    40 ms   0.000%
4    213.228.216.33   [Unknown]                                 1      1    40 ms    40 ms    40 ms    40 ms   0.000%
5    4.68.116.158     ae-19-55.ebr1.London1.Level3.net          1      1    40 ms    40 ms    40 ms    40 ms   0.000%
6    4.69.132.118     ae-1-100.ebr2.London1.Level3.net          1      1    40 ms    40 ms    40 ms    40 ms   0.000%
7    4.69.132.109     ae-4.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net             1      1   110 ms   110 ms   110 ms   110 ms   0.000%
8    4.69.132.26      ae-1-100.ebr2.NewYork1.Level3.net         1      1   110 ms   110 ms   110 ms   110 ms   0.000%
9    4.69.132.65      ae-2.ebr1.Chicago1.Level3.net             1      1   110 ms   110 ms   110 ms   110 ms   0.000%
10   4.69.132.61      ae-3.ebr2.Denver1.Level3.net              1      1   160 ms   160 ms   160 ms   160 ms   0.000%
11   4.68.107.166     ae-21-56.car1.Denver1.Level3.net          1      1   160 ms   160 ms   160 ms   160 ms   0.000%
12   4.79.80.142      PHOTOBUCKET.car1.Denver1.Level3.net       1      1   100 ms   100 ms   100 ms   100 ms   0.000%
13   66.11.56.99      [Unknown]                                 1      1    90 ms    90 ms    90 ms    90 ms   0.000%

[MoHux]

When I do a tracert this is what I get, is it my routers firewall stopping it?;

Tracing route to s163.photobucket.com [66.11.56.69]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  mygateway1.ar7 [192.168.1.1]
  2    19 ms    17 ms    17 ms  telehouse-gw3-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
  3    20 ms    19 ms    19 ms  redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
  4    25 ms  mygateway1.ar7 [192.168.1.1]  reports: Destination protocol unreachable.

Trace complete.

It will ping it right through. 

[CaptainSlow]

I'd try it to just the raw photobucket.com, the s163 is just one of their servers I think, I used that as it's the one my photos are, for linking to another forum (very handy too, just click and paste as it adds the forum tags for you, when it copies it to the clipboard)

Anyway, it would remove one layer of complication, so maybe that would help?

[Rik]

I get similar speeds to what I got yesterday

I got very similar speeds to you, Glenn, despite the obviously different routings. I sent Simon my tracerts so he could see what was happening.

[CaptainSlow]

Just a quick update;

Looks like Simon has finally prevailed and found something that was having a dreadful effect on my experience, and changed it.

Not yet able to be certain it's a total fix, but it's mighty impressive in some areas already. Next two days should tell if it's the full monty as fixes go though.

First thing that happened was I set an absolute all time speed record for my connection!

Bear in mind I am on a 1Mb fixed connection, I made a request for headers on a 3rd party news server, and just chose some busy looking groups to test on, NewBinPro showed a DL rate of 123KBps for the headers and then went on to show off on a bunch of 1000 files grabbed at random, and turned in 124.1KBps during that! For a longish 1Mb line that is not all that common. It's certainly 4.1KBps more than I had ever expected to see.

Got to hand it to Simon for sheer perseverance despite how it looked a few times. I'd not have blamed him if he thought it was my end, but it already seems quite clear that it was not ultimately.

Credit where it's due;  Nice job IDNet.

[Rik]

Credit where it's due;  Nice job IDNet.

We told you you'd like it here.