IDNet network problems

zappaDPJ · Apr 21, 2015, 15:40:48

Something I noticed last night is when I do a speed test on speedtest.net when things are as they should be, the test graph rises, flat-lines for the duration and then descends. This is what it looks like when things are not so good...

Bill · Apr 21, 2015, 15:48:42

The tbb tester gives all sorts of odd graphs when there's congestion about, I don't think you can get any useful information from it.

zappaDPJ · Apr 21, 2015, 16:33:11

You are probably right. I've now established it's not a modem/router issue and I'm fairly sure it's not being caused by any kind of local interference. The pattern points to congestion but I'm not convinced about that either and I don't think I'm being DOS attacked. I'm running out of ideas.

[Edit] And I'm now down to 5 Mbp/s down and 10% PL.

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

C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping idnet.com -n 50

Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.207] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=36ms 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=37ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=28ms 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=32ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=20ms 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=45ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=39ms 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=47ms 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=36ms 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=40ms 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=31ms 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=37ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=62

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.207:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 45, Lost = 5 (10% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 64ms, Average = 36ms

C:\Users\zappaDPJ>

Bill · Apr 21, 2015, 16:38:17

That's about where I am too.

Only other idea I've got is that some stray QoS has crept in somewhere, and if anything I'm less convinced about that than the other theories

Bill · Apr 21, 2015, 16:57:03

I did speak too soon earlier- packet loss is around 5%, speedtest:

Bill · Apr 21, 2015, 19:11:44

Looking at our BQMs today (posts #98 and #99) up until time of this post they are so close they could almost be to the same IP (I'm not putting that forward as a suggestion!).

There just has to be something odd that our connections have in common, but I've not the faintest idea what it could be

zappaDPJ · Apr 21, 2015, 19:19:17

It really is the oddest thing. I've reach a point where I'm wondering if I should call Mulder and Scully, Ghostbusters or a priest $:-\$

Bill · Apr 21, 2015, 19:26:27

I was thinking of what Sherlock Holmes said (more or less):

"When you have eliminated all the possibles then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

But he didn't say what to do when you run out of improbables $:-\$

nowster · Apr 22, 2015, 08:46:41

Well, I don't think iDNet will have bought their broadband service from a major supermarket chain.

Simon · Apr 22, 2015, 09:15:41

Quote from: nowster on Apr 22, 2015, 08:46:41
Well, I don't think iDNet will have bought their broadband service from a major supermarket chain.

They're just getting customers prepared for the migration to Talk Talk.

Gary · Apr 22, 2015, 10:10:29

What vdsl router do they send out, is it the 8800NL?

Bill · Apr 22, 2015, 11:34:06

No, the 8800AXL

Gary · Apr 22, 2015, 13:38:08

I have got a stash of ECI modems and hg612, and my R7000 suits me fine. Airtime fairness works really well across 802.n and 802.ac clients. I looked at the ac87U from asus with its built in kind of antivirus but it seems to be the most buggy router known to man sadly. Seems combining Broadcom and Quantenna creats a monster. The Netgear R7500 is no better as it's the same set up. The 8800AXL does look good but I would not go back to a router with inbuilt antenna or inbuilt modems again now. Also I wonder how it will fair on ECI cabs with a Broadcom chipset since lantiq chipsets didn't work on Broadcom Huawei cabs very well.

Bill · Apr 22, 2015, 14:21:18

Quote from: Gary on Apr 22, 2015, 13:38:08The 8800AXL does look good but I would not go back to a router with inbuilt antenna or inbuilt modems again now.

The antennae are a possible concern- anything on my WLAN that can use 5GHz does, but even the Asus's external antennae only just give full-house coverage on that band.

I too prefer a separate modem but I'm not dogmatic about it, and the Billion can be configured to use an external one if required.

I'm not committed to it- it's only on loan to help with investigation of the latency problem and IDNet will want it back in due course. Or a cheque I suppose, if I decide I like it enough.

ECI cabs aren't my problem- mine's Huawei and I have no plans to move house

Gary · Apr 22, 2015, 20:00:25

Quote from: Bill on Apr 22, 2015, 14:21:18
ECI cabs aren't my problem- mine's Huawei and I have no plans to move house

My Netgear R7000 beams my 5Ghz out into the garden and all though my bungalow, its a great router and has mature firmware now too. I am on an ECI cab so would not risk a broadcom chipset, only a Lantiq one to match the cab. I'll keep my modem and current setup as I to wont be moving again.

Bill · Apr 22, 2015, 20:27:45

Mine can cover the garden without bother- that's only one wall (sometimes two, depending where I'm sitting) to get through.

It's the upstairs diagonally opposite bedroom that can be iffy- that's four walls and a floor/ceiling in the way!

Don't often need it in there though.

Gary · Apr 23, 2015, 00:14:13

Mine goes though two walls and an thick walled alcove and thats on 5Ghz. 2.4Ghz gets to about 300ft which is a bit ott. Big aerials and a good chipset with both implicit and explicit beamforming and airtime fairness and 256bit Qam for 2.4Ghz chipsets that support it. Does me.

I wish though BTOR would let the world and its dog know what's happening with the continued roll out on G.inp, its seems to have stopped on the last few Huawei cabs and not even got to ECI cabs but has been tested on 9000 of them and it worked fine. I think the incapability between huawei and ECI modems was the issue, it would not surprise me that ECI to ECI and Huawei to HG612 was the way it was meant to be done, but someone got the facts wrong. The fall out could be happening for sometime, which wont help trouble shooting line issues

Adrian · Apr 23, 2015, 11:05:14

I don't know if this is relevant, but there is a post on the Thinkbroadband Plusnet forum with what look like similar issues to what you guys are having.

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/plusnet/f/4404279-congestion-at-peak-times.html?vc=1

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/f2b4bb2f0aaba9da79dd95859676ee6b.html

Bill · Apr 25, 2015, 08:18:12

I was cautiously optimistic that it might be improving on Thursday:

Then along came Friday:

It's an improvement over how it used to be, but it clearly isn't fixed

Then to add insult to injury, DLM appears to have kicked in and stolen about 8-10MHz of sync

What's yours up to Zap?

Gary · Apr 25, 2015, 08:45:11

From what I can see the Billion 8800 AXL does not support upsteam G.inp which will still lead to latency issues and speed drops per the link that Bill put out earlier, which shows how retransmission works on lines.

Bill · Apr 25, 2015, 08:57:36

Quote from: Gary on Apr 25, 2015, 08:45:11
From what I can see the Billion 8800 AXL does not support upsteam G.inp

Problem there is that I'm still using the Asus with an HG512- I haven't had a chance to play with the Billion yet. Hopefully sometime this weekend.

As to whether it supports upstream G.INP- I think it depends on the firmware and, atm, I don't know what I've got. See this tbb post and later ones (switch to flat mode).

Gary · Apr 25, 2015, 09:24:46

Quote from: Bill on Apr 25, 2015, 08:57:36
Problem there is that I'm still using the Asus with an HG512- I haven't had a chance to play with the Billion yet. Hopefully sometime this weekend.

As to whether it supports upstream G.INP- I think it depends on the firmware and, atm, I don't know what I've got. See this tbb post and later ones (switch to flat mode).

I think the ECI cabs are also an issue now

tbh Bill the whole thing is a mess. I may update one of my HG612's to SP08 just in case it helps. That post from ISP review seems to have had some info cut out as well for some reason according to Kitz.

Bill · Apr 25, 2015, 09:35:07

I've just realised that I can avoid possible G.INP problems easily enough by following the excellent principle of only changing one thing at a time- I'll continue with the HG512 and set the Billion up in router-only mode (ie use its Ethernet WAN port) until everything else is working and I know the firmware is OK.

Quote from: Gary on Apr 25, 2015, 09:24:46tbh Bill the whole thing is a mess.

Of course it is, it's BT- piss-up and brewery come to mind

Gary · Apr 25, 2015, 10:14:15

Quote from: Bill on Apr 25, 2015, 09:35:07
I've just realised that I can avoid possible G.INP problems easily enough by following the excellent principle of only changing one thing at a time- I'll continue with the HG512 and set the Billion up in router-only mode (ie use its Ethernet WAN port) until everything else is working and I know the firmware is OK.

Of course it is, it's BT- piss-up and brewery come to mind

If you are on a Huawei cab and have a HG612 then you will have no issues with G.inp anyway, Bill.

nowster · Apr 25, 2015, 11:14:36

I sit currently at my parents' place, where their modem has a 3.5Mbps bearer connection but the DSLAM has throttled the "profile" down to 1.5Mbps due to too many retrains in the last week. You lot just don't know what fun you're missing.

(At home I have 120Mbps/12Mbps cable. My parents are the IDNet customers.)