IDNet network problems

[zappaDPJ]

Just spoke to support, sent them the TBB BQM from yesterday showing the packet loss and they said they could not see any issues  What can I say, its there in blood red!

I've just done the same and had the same result. Apparently there have been no reports of any network issues.

Can someone please link me IDNet's BQM.

[Bill]

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/3e9f40bbdf719aef79db49d8d5f4522c.html

[zappaDPJ]

Thanks Bill

[Bill]

My pleasure

[Clive]

   I recommended IDNet to my sister-in-law last night as she has been having dreadful problems with EE.  No phone and no internet and she can't get through to them on her mobile.  I told her about the great support IDNet provides.   

[Gary]

I've just done the same and had the same result. Apparently there have been no reports of any network issues.

Can someone please link me IDNet's BQM.

i have a screen shot of yesterday's mess snagged from here if you want it Zap

[Steve]

There's a BT one here whilst it lasts!

80f348ab78e3db7733267a62ddf00391.html][/url]

[zappaDPJ]

Support still can't see that I have a problem...




Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping idnet.com -n 100

Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.207] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=62

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.207:
    Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 88, Lost = 12 (12% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 68ms, Average = 38ms

C:\Users\zappaDPJ>

[Bill]

After I read your post I ran the same ping test and emailed support:

Hi Simon

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
iMac-3:~ billford$ ping -c 100 idnet.com
PING idnet.com (212.69.36.207): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.207: icmp_seq=0 ttl=62 time=37.150 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.207: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=48.664 ms
.
.
.
64 bytes from 212.69.36.207: icmp_seq=98 ttl=62 time=42.493 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.207: icmp_seq=99 ttl=62 time=33.242 ms

--- idnet.com ping statistics ---
100 packets transmitted, 93 packets received, 7.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 22.010/35.308/59.446/9.575 ms
iMac-3:~ billford$
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I've been assuming that my packet loss and other indications of severe congestion are unique to me, because I use an SVLAN other than BT. But it would seem not.

I think it would be appropriate for you to peruse this IDNetters topic:

http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,32697.0.html

and reply there.

I saw Simon_M online so I assume he read the thread, but he chose to reply to my email instead:

Hi Bill,

I have forwarded all the data that I have been sent from your self and Zappa to our networking guys and Simon D, just to check everything on our network and any peers just in case anything has been over looked. Currently I cannot see any reason why anyones lines would be impacting so far it is just your self Zappa who have reported such an issue to us so we at this stage we are trying to get as much information as we can as all other data we have shows no issues on the network.

As soon as I have any feed back I will let you know.

kind regards
Simon Mulliss
IDNet support

Seems Gary's report wasn't logged...

We'll see.

[Gary]

It should have been as I told him Simon M about it this morning 

[Simon]

Just for reference, if it helps, here's mine.  The red block is where my router was blocking the ping:

[Bill]

It'll be better when it shows a full day, and it's my impression that it's the fibre connections that are being hit, but it's suggestive- the latency spikes aren't out of line with what Zap and I are seeing. Nor are the ones on the BT one you posted earlier, and on IDNet's own BQM.

There's a lot I don't know about networks (putting it mildly!) but I'm pretty sure that IDNet peer directly with NetConnex (aka tbb) so wouldn't really expect their own BQM to show very much at all in the way of latency increase or packet loss, and certainly not the "humps" that occurred on Wednesday and, to a lesser extent, yesterday.

Unless one of the networks/gateways (/peering points?) involved was running very close to a traffic level above which performance deteriorated rapidly (broadly along the lines of collision detection/avoidance on the old thick Ethernet), but exactly how that works is another area of woeful ignorance on my part.

My feeling is that it's IDNet, mainly because I know Seb and his determination to keep the "test" networks (BQM, speedtests etc) well away from any possibility of congestion. Why worst on fibre? Good question, maybe the fibre customers use different gateways to the copper ones?

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could comment on whether my (un)informed speculations might be anywhere close?

[Gary]

On the day idnets graph went red I lost connection with the cab for one second, enough to drop just 1Mbps not much but I rebooted the modem and got it back, syncing at 64.23Mbps. (was 64.99) Roll on G.inp for ECI cabs. Not sure if it was coincidental but I noticed on my connection 212.69.36.3 is now primary server not 212.69.40.3 I wondered what's changed.

[Bill]

... but I noticed on my connection 212.69.36.3 is now primary server not 212.69.40.3 I wondered what's changed.

DNS servers?

My router was rebooted a day or so ago (desperation  ) and they're 212.69.40.13 (primary) and 212.69.36.13 (secondary). So something is different- according to the note I keep of router settings they're normally the same IPs as yours. Odd.

But can't see why different DNS servers would cause latency problems

[Gary]

DNS servers?

My router was rebooted a day or so ago (desperation  ) and they're 212.69.40.13 (primary) and 212.69.36.13 (secondary). So something is different- according to the note I keep of router settings they're normally the same IPs as yours. Odd.

But can't see why different DNS servers would cause latency problems

Unless the primary DNS server was having an off day, although a dodgy dns server could lead to long page loading times. Mine are set to be grabbed automatically and are still leading with 212.69.36.13 it was rebooted yesterday. As far as the other issue I have no idea, but right now idnets TBB monitor is clear or the dreaded red

[Bill]

Unless the primary DNS server was having an off day ...

For normal browsing etc yes, but the BQM doesn't use DNS- it works with IP addresses not urls.

It's been a long-running criticism of it on tbb as it means it can't handle users with dynamic IPs.

[Gary]

I think with BTOR issues with G.inp, ECI Cabs seemingly not being updated at the moment and a link from AAISP about this https://aastatus.net/2115 a lot is up in the air right now.  Nothing is simple, I miss the days before I had a computer

[Bill]

I miss the days before I had a computer

They had their plus points 

[zappaDPJ]

I've reached a dead end with IDNet support. They can't see any problems with my connection and that seems to be the end of it. I have to say that I've found the general attitude towards this issue to be appalling. It seems to me that IDNet no longer welcome residential customers. I've asked for my service to be downgraded as there's no point paying for something that's only usable after midnight.

[Bill]

I have to say that I've found the general attitude towards this issue to be appalling.

I agree. They seem to think that because they can't see a problem on their network that they can simply wash their hands of it.

That's not what Technical Support staff are paid for.

[zappaDPJ]

I've started a thread on thinkbroadband.com to see if anyone else is having issues.

[Bill]

To which I have replied.

[zappaDPJ]

Thanks Bill

[Bill]

I see the thread has picked up a reasonable number of views, fingers crossed for replies.

I was wondering earlier whether to start a thread like yours in tbb's ISP Unhappiness, but I'll leave that option until I see what Support have to say about my difficulties... I think more people read that one.

[zappaDPJ]

I'll be interested to hear what support have to say and perhaps who said it so we can compare notes.