High latency tonight

Started by .Griff., Dec 28, 2010, 17:48:25

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

.Griff.

Dec 28, 2010, 17:48:25
Can people try pinging an IP address for me and post back the results?

I'm seeing much higher than normal latency to a group of servers in London and I'd like to see if it's represented across all IDNet users.

IP: 173.199.78.18

C:\Users\Gaming>ping 173.199.78.18

Pinging 173.199.78.18 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=113
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=113
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=113
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 173.199.78.18:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 143ms, Maximum = 150ms, Average = 145ms

BrianM

#1
Dec 28, 2010, 17:55:31
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Brian> ping 173.199.78.18

Pinging 173.199.78.18 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=114
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=114
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=114
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=114

Ping statistics for 173.199.78.18:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 155ms, Maximum = 171ms, Average = 163ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Brian>
C:\Documents and Settings\Brian>
C:\Documents and Settings\Brian>
Brian

Take care of all your memories. For you cannot relive them.

Ted

#2
Dec 28, 2010, 17:56:21
Here you go.

[ted@MDK2010 ~]$ ping 173.199.78.18 -c 10
PING 173.199.78.18 (173.199.78.18) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=2 ttl=111 time=146 ms
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=4 ttl=112 time=143 ms
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=5 ttl=112 time=161 ms
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=6 ttl=112 time=149 ms
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=7 ttl=112 time=145 ms
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=8 ttl=112 time=145 ms

--- 173.199.78.18 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 6 received, 40% packet loss, time 10006ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 143.262/148.363/161.032/5.973 ms
[ted@MDK2010 ~]$
Code Select
Ted
There's no place like 127.0.0.1

pctech

#3
Dec 28, 2010, 17:57:30
Hi Griff

Not on ID as you know but thought I'd do it so you can compare

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

ping 173.199.78.18

Pinging 173.199.78.18 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=119
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=119
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=119
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=119

Ping statistics for 173.199.78.18:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 36ms, Maximum = 36ms, Average = 36ms

.Griff.

#4
Dec 28, 2010, 17:58:45
Cheers Mitch.

Rik

#5
Dec 28, 2010, 18:02:10
ping 173.199.78.18

Pinging 173.199.78.18 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=113
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=113
Request timed out.
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=113

Ping statistics for 173.199.78.18:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 132ms, Maximum = 133ms, Average = 132ms

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=14ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=14ms 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 = 13ms, Maximum = 15ms, Average = 14ms

tracert 173.199.78.18

Tracing route to 173.199.78.18 over a maximum of 30 hops

 1     1 ms     1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
 2    15 ms    13 ms    19 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
 3    14 ms    15 ms    13 ms  telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.245]
 4    22 ms    49 ms    23 ms  gi8-27.mpd01.lon02.atlas.cogentco.com [149.6.148.205]
 5    13 ms    13 ms    15 ms  te1-2.ccr02.lon02.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.50.117]
 6    15 ms    13 ms    13 ms  te7-2.mpd02.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.0.97]
 7     *      132 ms     *     level3.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.14.198]
 8   133 ms   134 ms   132 ms  ae-1-51.edge4.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.74]
 9    32 ms    31 ms    31 ms  195.50.122.154
10   133 ms   131 ms   132 ms  173.199.78.18

Trace complete.

Seems to be in the Cogentco network.
Rik
--------------------

This post reflects my own views, opinions and experience, not those of IDNet.

.Griff.

#6
Dec 28, 2010, 18:03:48
Cheers Rik.

Just spotted that myself. What ever has gone wrong has only happened in the last 30 minutes  :mad: :mad:

Rik

#7
Dec 28, 2010, 18:05:36
People have started gaming in earnest?
Rik
--------------------

This post reflects my own views, opinions and experience, not those of IDNet.

pctech

#8
Dec 28, 2010, 18:06:11
Tracing route to 173.199.78.18 over a maximum of 30 hops

 1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.0.1
 2    23 ms    23 ms    22 ms  losubs.subs.dsl3.th-lon.zen.net.uk [62.3.84.25]

 3    24 ms    23 ms    24 ms  ge-0-0-0-117.cr2.th-lon.zen.net.uk [62.3.84.197]

 4    30 ms    29 ms    29 ms  ge-3-0-0-0.cr1.wh-man.zen.net.uk [62.3.80.46]
 5    30 ms    29 ms    29 ms  ge-2-0-0-0.cr2.wh-man.zen.net.uk [62.3.80.50]
 6    30 ms    30 ms    29 ms  ge-6-8.car1.Manchesteruk.Level3.net [195.16.169.
89]
 7    37 ms    35 ms    35 ms  ae-4-4.ebr1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.133.102]
 8    36 ms    36 ms    37 ms  ae-1-51.edge4.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.74]
 9    36 ms    36 ms    36 ms  195.50.122.154
10    36 ms    35 ms    37 ms  173.199.78.18

Trace complete.

Coming from my direction its level 3 all the way.

Something afoot with Cogent perhaps?

.Griff.

#9
Dec 28, 2010, 18:08:38
Quote from: Rik on Dec 28, 2010, 18:05:36
People have started gaming in earnest?

It was a sudden/immediate increase so I'm guessing poorly router or switch maybe?

The high latency isn't reflected on other ISP's (That I know of so far) so I guess I'm unfortunate with the routing IDNet takes.

Rik

#10
Dec 28, 2010, 18:09:55
It looks that way. :(
Rik
--------------------

This post reflects my own views, opinions and experience, not those of IDNet.

Gary

#11
Dec 28, 2010, 18:10:33
Ping has started...

PING 173.199.78.18 (173.199.78.18): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=0 ttl=112 time=139.047 ms
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=1 ttl=112 time=139.846 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 2
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=3 ttl=112 time=139.491 ms
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=4 ttl=112 time=140.725 ms
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=5 ttl=112 time=137.538 ms
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=6 ttl=112 time=138.914 ms
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=7 ttl=112 time=137.797 ms
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=8 ttl=112 time=136.770 ms
64 bytes from 173.199.78.18: icmp_seq=9 ttl=112 time=136.196 ms

--- 173.199.78.18 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 10.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 136.196/138.480/140.725/1.412 ms
Damned, if you do damned if you don't

pctech

#12
Dec 28, 2010, 18:12:24
By the looks Griff I'd say its peering router between Level 3 and Cogent.

pctech

#13
Dec 28, 2010, 18:16:00
Hopefully an alarm is going off in one of their NOCs as even if support were open they can't do a lot.

Rik

#14
Dec 28, 2010, 18:17:35
Indeed.
Rik
--------------------

This post reflects my own views, opinions and experience, not those of IDNet.

.Griff.

#15
Dec 28, 2010, 18:18:14
I guess I could go and do some housework and leave Black Ops until another night lol  :bawl:

Rik

#16
Dec 28, 2010, 18:20:10
Our car could do with washing, Griff.  :evil:
Rik
--------------------

This post reflects my own views, opinions and experience, not those of IDNet.

pctech

#17
Dec 28, 2010, 18:23:26
One thing I hate about the net is that its so decentralised there are often things occurring that are beyond your control which is a nightmare when supporting latency sensitive apps.

.Griff.

#18
Dec 28, 2010, 18:32:57
Back to normal now!

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Gaming>ping 173.199.78.18

Pinging 173.199.78.18 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=119
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=119
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=119
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=119

Ping statistics for 173.199.78.18:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 25ms

:phew:

Rik

#19
Dec 28, 2010, 18:36:27
Quote from: pctech on Dec 28, 2010, 18:23:26
One thing I hate about the net is that its so decentralised there are often things occurring that are beyond your control which is a nightmare when supporting latency sensitive apps.


Is that the only thing, Mitch?
Rik
--------------------

This post reflects my own views, opinions and experience, not those of IDNet.

Rik

#20
Dec 28, 2010, 18:37:40
Quote from: .Griff. on Dec 28, 2010, 18:32:57
Back to normal now!

Someone kicked the tyres:

ping 173.199.78.18

Pinging 173.199.78.18 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=119
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=119
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=119
Reply from 173.199.78.18: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=119

Ping statistics for 173.199.78.18:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 15ms, Average = 14ms
Rik
--------------------

This post reflects my own views, opinions and experience, not those of IDNet.

Holodene

#21
Dec 28, 2010, 19:00:57
Cogent sucks. I often see 140ms+ to various places in Europe.

pctech

#22
Dec 28, 2010, 20:13:27
Can't really say that but they market their services at a more agressive pricepoint than some of ther competitors shall we say.

Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions