Have any problems been reported?

[Glenn]

Bike?

Cycling home.

[Rik]

Sounds good, if too much like hard work for me.

[psp83]

Rik, you don't want to move here. If you want to die with boredom then do so, if not, stay well away

Hoping to get away from this town soon once I get my business backup and running 100% again.

And on a good note, Simon just replied to my rather frustrated email I sent today (I've apologised for it now)

It would appear that your Exchange has reached its current capacity. We'll see if we can find out from BT when they expect to have upgraded the capacity in your exchange.

I guess BT never put in enough capacity when they enabled our exchange.

[Rik]

They never do, Paul, they put in enough for today, then accept 100 orders tomorrow.

[psp83]

Your Exchange is reported as under-capacity and yet your symptoms are classic of congestion there.

So guess its going to be a waiting game, Hope it is congestion and BT upgrade soon.

[Baz]

i'm starting to be put off switching over now   

[psp83]

If you are happy with your speeds, service and allowed bandwidth now Baz, I wouldn't.

I only really did it for the extra upload.

[Rik]

So guess its going to be a waiting game, Hope it is congestion and BT upgrade soon.

This is the problem ISPs face. All the signs of congestion are there, but BT deny any issue. Then, miraculously, one day the problem disappears...

[psp83]

A case of BT not wanting to admit (when have they?) or they still dont know there own stuff yet!

[Steve]

If we recall before the hostlink appeared the classic sign of congestion was high and varied pings combined with variable throughput. I think we have evidence that BT21CN is over subscribed and if your own VP is at capacity,then when the exchange is busy you are going to struggle. You can alleviate the exchange congestion by paying for exchange priority but is it worth the extra cost. I don't think there is a lot of logic why suddenly the exchange VP becomes congested, mine appeared overnight and has got a lot better recently since BT increased the exchange capacity.

[Rik]

I feel it's an unwillingness to admit, Paul. We've seen it so often, the problem appears, ISPs start to raise it, BT deny the issue, suddenly the problem goes away. From what I've heard, they have still been juggling the capacity on WBC recently, moving it from one place to another as complaints rise. I've certainly seen that on my own line, with speeds of <600k on a 3.5M profile.

[Baz]

If you are happy with your speeds, service and allowed bandwidth now Baz, I wouldn't.

I only really did it for the extra upload.

i am seriously thinking about NOT switching,applied two weeks ago and was told a date,as you may remember,and BT said there was not enough capacity in the exchange.could this be a sign i'm starting to think

[Rik]

It's an indication of the problem we are talking about, Baz. BT will happily accept orders for capacity they simply don't have.

[Technical Ben]

This is the problem ISPs face. All the signs of congestion are there, but BT deny any issue. Then, miraculously, one day the problem disappears...

Sorry I ever doubted you Rik! But after BT denying Exchange congestion, Virtual path congestion was the only other thing I could think of that would do this. (Other than the local pigeons sleeping on the line from 4pm onwards.  )
Oh, it seems to be the rule of thumb when it comes down to capacity. O2 and Sky should be forced to sell their home access [bt reselling] services

[Rik]

VP and backhaul are the two issues that seem to occur most commonly, Ben. Luckily, BT haven't found a way to connect two lines to the same MSAN port or we'd see issues there too.

[Glenn]

Give them time 

[Rik]

 

I thought that as I posted...

[Technical Ben]

VP and backhaul are the two issues that seem to occur most commonly, Ben. Luckily, BT haven't found a way to connect two lines to the same MSAN port or we'd see issues there too.

Except for the times the engineer sees a free hole in the board and just plugs in the cable and hopes for the best?

[Rik]

 

I think I know of an occasion where that actually happened.

[psp83]

Pings have been more stable today.

C:\Users\Paul>ping www.idnet.net

Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 23ms, Average = 20ms

Theres been a few times its been high but came down quick.

[Rik]

It's Friday.

[psp83]

Just thought I would update this post.

Pings have been fine since my last post.

C:\Users\Paul>tracert www.idnet.net

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

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
  2    14 ms    13 ms    13 ms  telehouse-gw4-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.99]
  3    13 ms    13 ms    14 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
  4    14 ms    14 ms    14 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    14 ms    14 ms    14 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    14 ms    14 ms    13 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.


PING 212.69.36.10 (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=10.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=10.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=10.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=10.0 ms

--- 212.69.36.10 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 10.0/10.0/10.0 ms

[Rik]

That's good, Paul, thanks.