Woah there ping!

AvengerUK · Aug 09, 2006, 14:57:08

Out of interest, has anyone spoken/emailed support about this?

As karvala says, it doesent matter as much to those that dont do alot of online gaming, however those that do it is hell!

thetrevone · Aug 09, 2006, 15:21:27

Karvala, I have noticed I get the odd times when I tracert idnet I get 300 ms reading where it is normally 24ms, as I write I have a max speed of 250k on my 8mb sync line I know that I will have to do BT speed test to prove what's going on, but I did a reverse traceroute to giganews with the following results with no firewall on, anybody got a clue what this result indicates
Regards
Doug

news.giganews.com
1 gw-vlan201.dca.giganews.com (216.196.98.1) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
2 g3-16.gw2.dca.giganews.com (216.196.96.61) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
3 217.6.48.249 (217.6.48.249) 0 ms 1 ms 0 ms
4 linx-gw12.LON.GB.net.DTAG.DE (62.154.15.154) 73 ms 73 ms 73 ms
5 62.156.139.142 (62.156.139.142) 74 ms 74 ms 74 ms
6 sl-gw21-lon-1-1.sprintlink.net (213.206.128.102) 74 ms 74 ms 74 ms
7 idnet-b-1.arbinet.net (213.232.65.101) 73 ms 73 ms 73 ms
8 telehouse-bb-gw5.idnet.net (212.69.40.11) 76 ms 74 ms 73 ms
9 * * *
10 * * *
11 * * *
Max number of unresponsive hops reached (firewall or filter?)

news-europe.giganews.com
1 216-196-110-1.ams.giganews.com (216.196.110.1) 0 ms 1 ms 0 ms
2 ams-ix-gw.idnet.net.uk (195.69.144.141) 42 ms 40 ms 48 ms
3 telehouse-gw-fa0-0-1003.idnet.net (212.69.63.2) 364 ms 359 ms 322 ms
4 telehouse-bb-gw5.idnet.net (212.69.40.11) 37 ms 44 ms 49 ms
5 * * *
6 * * *
7 * * *
Max number of unresponsive hops reached (firewall or filter?)

mrapoc · Aug 09, 2006, 17:29:28

i have contacted support but no reply as of yet - got any ideas jeff?

Glenn · Aug 09, 2006, 17:55:49

I get the following from a 212.69.52.xxx address, the results look fine to me, are the people that are getting the bad results on a different IP range?

Tracing route to news.giganews.com [216.196.109.144]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.0.1
2 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 14 ms 13 ms 14 ms telehouse-gw.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms ge2-2.fr1.lon.llnw.net [193.203.5.68]
5 20 ms 16 ms 15 ms ag1-6-1.ar1.lon.llnw.net [68.142.84.230]
6 23 ms 23 ms 25 ms agg1-15-2-4xoc48.ar1.ams.llnw.net [69.28.172.90]

7 32 ms 34 ms 33 ms tge6-2.fr1.ams.llnw.net [69.28.172.85]
8 38 ms 25 ms 22 ms giganews.ve212.fr1.ams.llnw.net [87.248.196.14]

9 * * * Request timed out.
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 *

Pinging news.giganews.com [216.196.109.144] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.196.109.144: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=115
Reply from 216.196.109.144: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=115
Reply from 216.196.109.144: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=115
Reply from 216.196.109.144: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=115

Ping statistics for 216.196.109.144:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 23ms

karvala · Aug 09, 2006, 19:09:26

Quote from: Glenn on Aug 09, 2006, 17:55:49
I get the following from a 212.69.52.xxx address, the results look fine to me, are the people that are getting the bad results on a different IP range?

Mine is from a 212.69.58.xxx address. You'll need to do at least half a dozen tracerts to be sure that you're not experiencing the problem; as I mentioned, it's intermittent and only appears in one of every three or four tracerts done.

AvengerUK · Aug 09, 2006, 20:39:27

Mine is from a 212.69.56.xxx address, and i get the problem almost every trace

Glenn · Aug 09, 2006, 20:46:32

I have just run 10 tracert's to news.giganews.com and the highest ping I received was 38ms.

Pinging the same address for approx 2 mins I was averaging 24ms with a peak of 89ms

AvengerUK · Aug 09, 2006, 21:01:43

Quote from: Glenn on Aug 09, 2006, 20:46:32
I have just run 10 tracert's to news.giganews.com and the highest ping I received was 38ms.

Pinging the same address for approx 2 mins I was averaging 24ms with a peak of 89ms

its not the end address were interested in tho....try pinging "telewest-gw.idnet.net"

karvala · Aug 09, 2006, 23:22:10

Well here's an interesting update. I SSH'd into a Unix machine at work, which obviously means that any internet-related activities that are run from that shell operate through their internet connection, not from my IDNet connection. While I was there, I thought it would be interesting to ping the suspect router (212.69.40.1), to see whether or not I would see the same pattern, and sure enough look at this:-

64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=245 time=4.50 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=245 time=4.55 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=245 time=4.85 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=245 time=4.72 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=245 time=10.1 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=245 time=4.76 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=245 time=12.7 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=245 time=4.25 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=245 time=125 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=245 time=257 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=245 time=100 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=245 time=260 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=245 time=4.53 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=245 time=174 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=245 time=4.57 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=15 ttl=245 time=4.31 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=16 ttl=245 time=4.53 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=17 ttl=245 time=4.27 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=18 ttl=245 time=4.41 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=19 ttl=245 time=4.34 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.40.1: icmp_seq=20 ttl=245 time=4.69 ms

It seems that the problem is definitely related to something periodically happening on that router, rather than any particular problem with our IDNet connections per se.

Scott · Aug 10, 2006, 08:49:31

Quote from: karvala on Aug 09, 2006, 23:22:10
<snip!>
It seems that the problem is definitely related to something periodically happening on that router, rather than any particular problem with our IDNet connections per se.

Well done Karvala...excellent detective work - hopefully this is additional background to help IDNet team in their investigations.

AvengerUK · Aug 10, 2006, 13:07:14

Hmm, hadnt thought about that!

THe below pings are from my server farm @ Merdian gate - the ping time is 1ms between them and idnet. Ive taken pings from one dorment box, i can guarantee that the pings are not affected by anything on my network

box:

Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=248

and again:

Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=188ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.69.63.40: bytes=32 time=384ms TTL=248

Scott · Aug 10, 2006, 14:45:32

[crossposted on AG too]
Just had an update on these telehouse-gw.idnet.net 'goings-on' from Tim Davies of IDNet.
"...have an engineer investigating right now and will report back as soon as they know more"

karvala · Aug 10, 2006, 14:48:09

Sounds promising; thanks for letting us know.

AvengerUK · Aug 10, 2006, 19:53:29

Ditto ^^

mrapoc · Aug 11, 2006, 13:20:17

Yesh ty v much

VaderDSL · Aug 11, 2006, 13:35:41

Sigh ... wonder if this will be the second ISP I migrate from this month

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

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>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 my.router [192.168.1.1]
2 133 ms 138 ms 151 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 117 ms 115 ms 124 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 144 ms 132 ms 118 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 134 ms 129 ms 120 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>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 my.router [192.168.1.1]
2 98 ms 98 ms 93 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 145 ms 141 ms 136 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 129 ms 128 ms 108 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 137 ms 143 ms 137 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>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 my.router [192.168.1.1]
2 123 ms 131 ms 138 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 154 ms 151 ms 156 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 103 ms 103 ms 107 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 144 ms 148 ms 138 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>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 my.router [192.168.1.1]
2 111 ms 119 ms 122 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
3 132 ms 124 ms 125 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.40.1]
4 139 ms 152 ms 152 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
5 130 ms 126 ms 112 ms telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>

AvengerUK · Aug 11, 2006, 13:58:11

- I think idnet will sort it out soon enough...if not...im rather stuck anyway! ive been to all the others atleast once!!!!!

Scott · Aug 11, 2006, 14:01:48

[cross-posted to AG - 'Huge Pings']

Further to Tim's update yesterday:

"...no news as yet. The engineer is running more tests today. So far it seems all the obvious possible causes have been ruled out. Next set of diagnostics may take a day or two to complete before we find what we're looking for. For sure as soon as we know more we'll keep you posted."

Thanks to Tim for the update and let's keep all appendages crossed this gets resolved asap.

Scott · Aug 11, 2006, 14:04:04

Quote from: VaderDSL on Aug 11, 2006, 13:35:41
Sigh ... wonder if this will be the second ISP I migrate from this month

Think that's a little premature Vader...let's get all the facts in and see where we stand. It could simply be a hardware issue, fouled-up routing...who knows. Don't put yourself through all the hassle over something that may be a simple fix.

mrapoc · Aug 11, 2006, 14:19:42

just sit tight

my connection is somewhat improving again although i am still getting a couple of connection errors knocking me off msn/xfire/game servers

VaderDSL · Aug 11, 2006, 14:26:04

Aye, I'll stick it out .. just annoying ... I came from University, where before I had 2 years with Nildram where the service was just top notch ... when I went to University, was on an 8mb JANET connection which was amazing also.

Now leave University Halls and into a house, and resubscribe with Nildram in the middle of July to be greeted with an unusable connection ... insanely high pings over Telia peering (my housemate plays Enemy Down tournaments so this was clearly an unnacceptable situation) and I play Eve Online, and high pings were also a problem.

We migrated over to IDNEt on the 3rd August

and started seeing high pings still ... I apologise for my outburst, just I never knew broadband had gone downhill so much in the last year

Richdog · Aug 11, 2006, 15:14:26

Quote from: VaderDSL on Aug 11, 2006, 14:26:04
Aye, I'll stick it out .. just annoying ... I came from University, where before I had 2 years with Nildram where the service was just top notch ... when I went to University, was on an 8mb JANET connection which was amazing also.

Now leave University Halls and into a house, and resubscribe with Nildram in the middle of July to be greeted with an unusable connection ... insanely high pings over Telia peering (my housemate plays Enemy Down tournaments so this was clearly an unnacceptable situation) and I play Eve Online, and high pings were also a problem.

We migrated over to IDNEt on the 3rd August and started seeing high pings still ... I apologise for my outburst, just I never knew broadband had gone downhill so much in the last year

Are you on MAX mate? May be worth thinking about down(up?)grading to 2MB IPstream.

VaderDSL · Aug 11, 2006, 15:15:59

Aye on maxDSL ... you think downgrading may help? I have good line stats on maxDSL atm though, high SnR, low Att and full sync

Richdog · Aug 11, 2006, 15:38:16

Quote from: VaderDSL on Aug 11, 2006, 15:15:59
Aye on maxDSL ... you think downgrading may help? I have good line stats on maxDSL atm though, high SnR, low Att and full sync

Max is riddled with problems... and many prefer the rock-like stability and consistent speeds that standard 2MB IPstream offers. It's the best for gaming and would be a good idea until they sort out the problems with MAX in my opinion.

VaderDSL · Aug 11, 2006, 15:42:39

Cool, I'll call a house meeting this evening ... and see what the consensus is ... going down to a 2Mb IPstream, won't that still be over the same network as maxDSL? I though dropping down would be good if suffering from disconects, or low speeds etc.?