Ping spikes on the BQM

Started by Bill, Feb 15, 2011, 10:00:17

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Bill

There's another thread for people with problems, but there's no real indication of how widespread the problem is- is it general or just a few select customers?

The problem seems to be characterised by periods of (more or less) slowly increasing latency followed by a sudden drop back to normal. What makes this unusual is the packet loss which follows the same general pattern, "normal" congestion doesn't seem to show the same packet loss. For the graphs I've seen, anyway.

Could anyone who is running the BQM and not seeing this effect post in this thread please? BQM graph optional.

That way we might get a handle on how common it is, and just maybe pick up some sort of common factor.
Bill
BQMs-  IPv4  IPv6

Rik

Don't run it, Bill, sorry. Good idea though.
Rik
--------------------

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

esh

I run a local quality monitor on the router here and have not seen any consistently high lag or big batches of packet loss for a while. There is the odd 2% spike but they are just momentary spikes, not protracted in length.
CompuServe 28.8k/33.6k 1994-1998, BT 56k 1998-2001, NTL Cable 512k 2001-2004, 2x F2S 1M 2004-2008, IDNet 8M 2008 - LLU 11M 2011

Rik

Thanks, esh. In case you haven't seen it, IDNet think they may have found a problem in one of the core routers, which will be re-booted tomorrow morning at 6.
Rik
--------------------

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

esh

Thanks Rik. My first hop is gw2, so I guess I have escaped the wrath of our packet routing overlords, this time.
CompuServe 28.8k/33.6k 1994-1998, BT 56k 1998-2001, NTL Cable 512k 2001-2004, 2x F2S 1M 2004-2008, IDNet 8M 2008 - LLU 11M 2011

faircot

Quote from: Bill on Feb 15, 2011, 10:00:17

Could anyone who is running the BQM and not seeing this effect post in this thread please? BQM graph optional.

Here's mine.


Bill

Quote from: esh on Feb 15, 2011, 15:20:14
Thanks Rik. My first hop is gw2, so I guess I have escaped the wrath of our packet routing overlords, this time.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when gw5 gets kicked... a traceroute from me to tbb goes through gw5, a traceroute from them to me doesn't!
Bill
BQMs-  IPv4  IPv6

Rik

Are you on a gw5 login, Bill?
Rik
--------------------

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

Bill

@ faircot- yeah, thai's what several of us are seeing, periods of higher than normal latency together with elevated packet loss.

The periods of higher latency without the packet loss are almost certainly just normal congestion and are just something we have to put up with if we want broadband :(
Bill
BQMs-  IPv4  IPv6

Bill

Bill
BQMs-  IPv4  IPv6

Rik

Thanks. I am on gw5, but don't see it in a trace, if you see what I mean.
Rik
--------------------

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

Bill

I don't see dsl4 on a trace, in either direction... does it matter these days? :dunno:
Bill
BQMs-  IPv4  IPv6

Rik

It shouldn't do, Bill, we are all connected to the same hostlink these days. For that matter, I can't recall ever seeing a dsl4 in a trace. OTOH, since you mentioned gw5, I thought it was worth checking your login as I am gw5, and don't see it in a trace:

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  192.168.1.254
  2    14 ms    13 ms    13 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
  3    16 ms    13 ms    17 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
  4   250 ms   305 ms   169 ms  redbus-gw2-fa1-1-1003.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
  5    16 ms    13 ms    15 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    16 ms    15 ms    13 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.
Rik
--------------------

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

esh

My login is also a gw5, but yeah, I suspect it means little... I guess a lot of hardware/infrastructure got consolidated, but I don't pretend to understand these things.
CompuServe 28.8k/33.6k 1994-1998, BT 56k 1998-2001, NTL Cable 512k 2001-2004, 2x F2S 1M 2004-2008, IDNet 8M 2008 - LLU 11M 2011

Rik

It's all one big black box to me, esh. :)
Rik
--------------------

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

Bill

My route to IDNet looks the same as yours except hop 2, I go through gw4 rather than gw2.
Bill
BQMs-  IPv4  IPv6

Rik

I'd be interested to know what decides that.
Rik
--------------------

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

.Griff.

Quote from: Rik on Feb 15, 2011, 16:14:15
It shouldn't do, Bill, we are all connected to the same hostlink these days. For that matter, I can't recall ever seeing a dsl4 in a trace. OTOH, since you mentioned gw5, I thought it was worth checking your login as I am gw5, and don't see it in a trace:

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  192.168.1.254
  2    14 ms    13 ms    13 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
  3    16 ms    13 ms    17 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
  4   250 ms   305 ms   169 ms  redbus-gw2-fa1-1-1003.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
  5    16 ms    13 ms    15 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    16 ms    15 ms    13 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.


I'm GW6 but my TR is identical to yours Rik.

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                      WinMTR statistics                                   |
|                       Host              -   %  | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
|                             192.168.1.1 -    0 |  104 |  104 |    0 |    0 |   28 |    0 |
|             telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net -    0 |  104 |  104 |   18 |   19 |   36 |   18 |
|        telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net -    0 |  104 |  104 |   18 |   23 |  291 |   19 |
|         redbus-gw2-fa1-1-1003.idnet.net -   27 |   49 |   36 |    0 |   19 |   21 |   19 |
|          redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net -    6 |   85 |   80 |   19 |   19 |   42 |   19 |
|                           www.idnet.net -    1 |  101 |  100 |   19 |   19 |   43 |   20 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
  WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider

Rik

Well, that eliminates logins as the determinant.
Rik
--------------------

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

pctech

BT decides which particular physical  connection your traffic flows over for hand off to the ISP on what appears be a 'round robin' basis.

I've known some ISPs who have lost a pipe or two need to do some load balancing when the pipe is fixed so that traffic is evenly balanced.

This involves terminating PPP so that BT moves it to another pipe.


Rik

We've certainly seen that happen in the past with centrals, Mitch.
Rik
--------------------

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

pctech

Forget where I read it now but I believe the ISPs could steer the traffic to certain centrals on 20CN but they no longer can on 21CN.


Rik

ISPs used to be able to load balance by moving people around to different pipes, but now they have just the one.
Rik
--------------------

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

pctech

Not sure whether this holds true for other ISPs but the ISP I use have hostlinks in both London and Manchaster but since it all went to 21CN I've only ever connected to the London gateways whereas before sometimes it would be London, sometimes Manchester and sometimes at their HQ in Rochdale.

Rik

IDNet has always been in one place, Mitch.
Rik
--------------------

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

sof2er

G:\Users\Sof2er>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    22 ms    22 ms    22 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
  3    22 ms    22 ms    21 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4    23 ms    22 ms    22 ms  redbus-gw2-fa1-1-1003.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
  5    22 ms    22 ms    22 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    22 ms    22 ms    23 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

G:\Users\Sof2er>tracert google.com

Tracing route to google.com [74.125.230.114]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
  2    22 ms    21 ms    22 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
  3    22 ms    22 ms    21 ms  telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.245]
  4    22 ms    22 ms    23 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    22 ms    22 ms    22 ms  google1.lonap.net [193.203.5.136]
  6    22 ms    22 ms    30 ms  209.85.255.78
  7    23 ms    22 ms    23 ms  209.85.251.62
  8    22 ms    22 ms    22 ms  74.125.230.114

Trace complete.

G:\Users\Sof2er>


I'm on GW6