Pings

Started by Jeff, Aug 20, 2006, 00:17:23

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 22
User actions

browney

#275
Sep 07, 2006, 12:29:50
maybe for you

equk

#276
Sep 07, 2006, 12:39:50 Last Edit: Sep 07, 2006, 12:45:19 by equk
anyone also noticed "telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)" seems to be doubled  ???

strange :)

just logged into l8nc but still says - Status: Test awaiting approval by administrator :( xms signed up the same day and got resuts straight away  ???
e6400 @ 3.2Ghz 38°C 45°C | ATI X1900XT | P5W DH | ss: linux | osx
migration complete - sync 5mb 500k - stable low ping times

xms

#277
Sep 07, 2006, 13:14:07
I'm going to run some more tests when i get home tonight. But yet again i seem to be unaffected game wise. Both UT2k4 and CSS are lag free for me.

I also played a CSS match last night with a couple of guys also on idnet - they didnt get any ping issues either :/

AvengerUK

#278
Sep 07, 2006, 13:17:00
well, my ping issues are next to gone...which is extremely weird. Can anyone from IDnet comment?

Rolacka

#279
Sep 07, 2006, 13:35:31
Still abysmal for me , just logged into wow with a 488ms ping =/ , tried a trace to bbc.co.uk ........ like i said on Adslguide , this is only a problem during the day after 6 pm its 30 ms max for me =/

Pinging www.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.84] with 32 bytes of data

Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.224.84: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=249

Ping statistics for 212.58.224.84:
    Packets: Sent = 28, Received = 28, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 65ms, Maximum = 160ms, Average = 120ms
Control-C
^C

browney

#280
Sep 07, 2006, 13:37:13
QuoteHi Steven

That interface was only enabled this morning and we have only just added the
reverse-DNS for it.
Cheers
Simon

AvengerUK

#281
Sep 07, 2006, 13:38:07
This really does get stranger and stranger! - I mean, how can i, who's had the problem since it began, today see a 95% improvment in pings, while other users remain the same?! It makes NO sense!

Rolacka

#282
Sep 07, 2006, 13:54:11
Well its an idnet prob i just tried the bttest server to make sure its not my exchange which is showing green uncongested anyway & got

Pinging 217.47.73.142 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 217.47.73.142: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254

Ping statistics for 217.47.73.142:
    Packets: Sent = 24, Received = 24, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 11ms
Control-C
^C

AvengerUK

#283
Sep 07, 2006, 13:57:00
Yeh - its cirtianally an idnet problem. The fact that mine have sorted themselves out...(95%) seems promising. As ive just said on ADSLguide, ive emailed simon asking as to why - ill post back here and @ ag once i get a reply!

Rolacka

#284
Sep 07, 2006, 14:51:01
Well I have no clue whats going on , I just retested after you said yours had improved & mine are also back to being fine, 116 ms in wow when i just logged in which for wow is about right & the ping results I just got back are also v good with no more 170 ms pings to the first idnet router, lets hope it stays this way.

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.227.75] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.227.75: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=248

Ping statistics for 212.58.227.75:
    Packets: Sent = 17, Received = 17, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 47ms, Average = 30ms
Control-C
^C

Rolacka

#285
Sep 07, 2006, 14:54:28
I should add that the only thing i did after i got the earlier abysmal results was log the router on to the bt test for a ping test there to see if was my exchange, not sure why that would fix it but thats the only thing that I did.

philco

#286
Sep 07, 2006, 15:43:02 Last Edit: Sep 07, 2006, 15:46:05 by philco
Well thats all it takes to reset your session and connect you to a different pipe. I experienced bad pings during weekdays for a few of weeks but since i disconected my router for a while at the weekend, this week has been fine for me while others are still having problems.



My theory about it being pot luck if you are allocated to a bad pipe or not is looking more likely.

http://www.idnetters.idnet.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=450.msg4963#msg4963


[attachment deleted by admin]

xms

#287
Sep 07, 2006, 17:24:03
Quote from: equk on Sep 07, 2006, 12:27:03
here's some results on a F2S (pipex) connection :o

Lower and more stable than idnet lol  ???

Not for me.....

Code Select

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert quake3-04.xs4all.nl

Tracing route to quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.254.254
  2    10 ms    10 ms     9 ms  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net [212.69.63.45]
  3    11 ms    10 ms    10 ms  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net [212.69.63.9]
  4    19 ms    15 ms    13 ms  redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
  5    26 ms    28 ms    28 ms  ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net [195.69.144.48]
  6    34 ms    27 ms    26 ms  0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.5]
  7    33 ms    28 ms    27 ms  0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.5.94]
  8    36 ms    28 ms    29 ms  quake3-04.xs4all.nl [194.109.69.93]

Trace complete.

equk

#288
Sep 07, 2006, 18:10:04
Code Select
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1  cisco (192.168.1.1)  1.226 ms  0.670 ms  0.659 ms
2  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  23.034 ms  22.415 ms  21.989 ms
3  * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  22.545 ms  21.807 ms
4  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9)  22.067 ms  22.557 ms  23.920 ms
5  redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1)  22.086 ms  24.671 ms *
6  ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48)  72.607 ms  39.020 ms  39.547 ms
7  0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5)  44.128 ms  48.478 ms  43.925 ms
8  0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94)  68.027 ms  66.505 ms  57.973 ms
9  quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93)  66.109 ms  40.424 ms *
Seems atm the ping times are at least below 100ms, still getting some massive spikes.
Code Select
PING 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=62.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=84.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=75.5 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=40.8 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=42.0 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=6 ttl=247 time=39.3 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=7 ttl=247 time=40.5 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=8 ttl=247 time=77.8 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=9 ttl=247 time=45.1 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=10 ttl=247 time=38.3 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=11 ttl=247 time=41.9 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=12 ttl=247 time=66.8 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=13 ttl=247 time=42.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=14 ttl=247 time=85.4 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=15 ttl=247 time=70.9 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=16 ttl=247 time=42.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=17 ttl=247 time=43.1 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=18 ttl=247 time=44.4 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=19 ttl=247 time=61.7 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=20 ttl=247 time=47.0 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=21 ttl=247 time=76.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=22 ttl=247 time=81.5 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=23 ttl=247 time=88.7 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=24 ttl=247 time=62.0 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=25 ttl=247 time=39.3 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=26 ttl=247 time=78.5 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=27 ttl=247 time=43.8 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=28 ttl=247 time=59.1 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=29 ttl=247 time=64.3 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=30 ttl=247 time=39.9 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=31 ttl=247 time=66.8 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=32 ttl=247 time=40.1 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=33 ttl=247 time=45.4 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=34 ttl=247 time=38.6 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=35 ttl=247 time=59.9 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=36 ttl=247 time=91.1 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=37 ttl=247 time=50.3 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=38 ttl=247 time=87.6 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=39 ttl=247 time=91.2 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=40 ttl=247 time=92.1 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=41 ttl=247 time=69.4 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=42 ttl=247 time=40.7 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=43 ttl=247 time=88.0 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=44 ttl=247 time=41.6 ms
64 bytes from 194.109.69.93: icmp_seq=45 ttl=247 time=68.5 ms

--- 194.109.69.93 ping statistics ---
45 packets transmitted, 45 received, 0% packet loss, time 44282ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 38.367/59.964/92.160/18.505 ms
average of 60ms to NL ?

Guess we're getting closer to fixing problems as at least the ping is below 100ms.

Some of the results people have posted in this thread seem very unrealistic considering the current stats of ADSL. I know some people are thinking the same due to PMs I have recieved this week.
e6400 @ 3.2Ghz 38°C 45°C | ATI X1900XT | P5W DH | ss: linux | osx
migration complete - sync 5mb 500k - stable low ping times

equk

#289
Sep 07, 2006, 18:34:46 Last Edit: Sep 07, 2006, 18:37:18 by equk
constant 75ms ingame ping :( people from uk on the server at 38-40ms (other people are pinging it at 30ms like the pipex traceroute above)

http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/q3idnet.jpg
for comparison - plusnet:

http://news.equk.co.uk/adsl/40plusnet.jpg
e6400 @ 3.2Ghz 38°C 45°C | ATI X1900XT | P5W DH | ss: linux | osx
migration complete - sync 5mb 500k - stable low ping times

maxping

#290
Sep 07, 2006, 19:34:09
I am giving up posting here until interleaving is turned off.

The ping pics i am showing do not give a fair picture of my connection and may put newcomers off.

equk

#291
Sep 07, 2006, 20:28:38
Well now I've been trying a few more servers it seems atm my connection to a lot of servers is fine and also perfectly stable.

I'm thinking the ping spikes and pl are caused by routing to certain servers. Here are a few examples.

Good Stable NL ingame times: 38ms-45ms :
Code Select
traceroute to 131.211.172.111 (131.211.172.111), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1  cisco (192.168.1.1)  1.222 ms  0.674 ms  0.635 ms
2  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  21.545 ms  21.846 ms  23.810 ms
3  * telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  22.867 ms  25.035 ms
4  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9)  23.182 ms  21.549 ms  23.933 ms
5  g-s-1.lon1.arbinet.net (213.232.64.51)  24.058 ms  29.556 ms *
6  sl-bb22-lon-9-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.128.104)  22.938 ms  23.429 ms  21.971 ms
7  sl-bb20-lon-12-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.128.52)  28.034 ms  23.529 ms  31.868 ms
8  213.206.131.26 (213.206.131.26)  24.050 ms  23.269 ms *
9  so1-0-0-2488M.ar1.AMS1.gblx.net (67.17.65.242)  32.950 ms  35.010 ms  43.979 ms
10  SURFnet-3.ge-3-2-0.nar1.AMS1.gblx.net (208.49.224.22)  32.316 ms GigaSurf-Amsterdam.ge-2-1-0.ar1.AMS1.gblx.net (208.49.125.50)  33.117 ms SURFnet-3.ge-3-2-0.nar1.AMS1.gblx.net (208.49.224.22)  31.050 ms
11  AF-500.XSR01.Amsterdam1A.surf.net (145.145.80.9)  32.585 ms  33.010 ms  34.178 ms
12  uu-router.Customer.surf.net (145.145.16.162)  35.875 ms  32.982 ms  33.959 ms
13  * sw-binnenstad.net.uu.nl (131.211.0.67)  34.351 ms  34.797 ms
14  * linux-jasper.vet.uu.nl (131.211.172.111)  32.485 ms  34.809 ms

Some laggy very unstable servers (avg ingame ping is 85 with packet loss aswell as spikes): (co-incidently main used)

Code Select
traceroute to 85.25.10.49 (85.25.10.49), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1  cisco (192.168.1.1)  1.276 ms  0.980 ms  0.884 ms
2  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  24.111 ms  22.425 ms *
3  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  20.997 ms  22.545 ms  21.979 ms
4  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9)  31.994 ms  24.419 ms  21.885 ms
5  * redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1)  23.298 ms  23.334 ms
6  AMS-IX.AMS-1-eth010-101.nl.lambdanet.net (195.69.144.212)  46.042 ms  39.119 ms  53.902 ms
7  DUS-2-pos700.de.lambdanet.net (82.197.128.29)  42.158 ms  43.337 ms  52.014 ms
8  DUS1-5029.de.lambdanet.net (217.71.104.30)  124.698 ms  142.822 ms  51.934 ms
9  kilo020.server4you.de (85.25.10.49)  56.152 ms  61.223 ms  55.956 ms

Code Select
traceroute to 194.109.69.93 (194.109.69.93), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1  cisco (192.168.1.1)  0.699 ms  0.700 ms  0.675 ms
2  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  22.354 ms  19.931 ms *
3  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  22.534 ms  22.531 ms  23.964 ms
4  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9)  21.976 ms  22.399 ms  20.171 ms
5  * redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1)  22.684 ms  24.480 ms
6  ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (195.69.144.48)  42.063 ms  46.484 ms  86.246 ms
7  0.so-6-0-0.xr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.5)  38.382 ms  38.740 ms  83.910 ms
8  0.so-3-0-0.cr2.3d12.xs4all.net (194.109.5.94)  50.036 ms  56.429 ms  39.887 ms
9  quake3-04.xs4all.nl (194.109.69.93)  53.991 ms *  40.620 ms
e6400 @ 3.2Ghz 38°C 45°C | ATI X1900XT | P5W DH | ss: linux | osx
migration complete - sync 5mb 500k - stable low ping times

mrapoc

#292
Sep 07, 2006, 20:46:15
seems to be getting better my end

AvengerUK

#293
Sep 07, 2006, 21:30:33
Getting better my end, and has been all day since 9. Im becomming a happy IDnetter once again!

...i just hope i dont have to eat those words!

karvala

#294
Sep 07, 2006, 23:01:26
Quote from: maxping on Sep 07, 2006, 19:34:09
I am giving up posting here until interleaving is turned off.

The ping pics i am showing do not give a fair picture of my connection and may put newcomers off.



Yes, likewise.  My pings are averaging around 40ms even to the first hop at present; it's hard to know whether this constitutes a real problem, or is simply the effect of interleaving (although yesterday they were averaging more like 25ms, so it's not entirely clear).  I'll wait until interleaving has finally and genuinely been removed before looking further at the pings, assuming that the removal happens promptly.

Danni

#295
Sep 07, 2006, 23:12:00
Much better here today- only 3 disconnects, one at 1.16am, one at 2.29pm and one at 8.12pm. Pings are back down to their normal ~40ms (interleaving on) except around the disconnect times, where they go up above 100ms. Will check again in the morning and then email Simon to tell him what's going on here.
IDNet Customer (ex-partner's name): 6th January 2006 - 23rd March 2007
IDNet broadband Customer (my name): 11th June 2008 - 21st April 2010

Now with Be for internets, IDNet for phone.

AvengerUK

#296
Sep 08, 2006, 09:04:49 Last Edit: Sep 08, 2006, 09:31:34 by AvengerUK
http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e&sid=&day=today

Perfect!

I hope anyone else left with the issue gets it sorted soon :)

Scott

#297
Sep 08, 2006, 11:37:42
That's a nice clean line Auk :0)
All appendages crossed we're out the woods on this eh ?  :laugh:
Member of the IDNet Mafia
How to Spot and Deal with Trolls

AvengerUK

#298
Sep 08, 2006, 12:32:33
Quote from: Scott on Sep 08, 2006, 11:37:42
That's a nice clean line Auk :0)
All appendages crossed we're out the woods on this eh ?  :laugh:

So crossed that there in danger of getting tangled  ;)

equk

#299
Sep 08, 2006, 12:56:34
well didn't take long for the ping problems to come back :(
Code Select
traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1  cisco (192.168.1.1)  1.287 ms  0.672 ms  0.643 ms
2  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  163.647 ms  156.786 ms  146.032 ms
3  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  135.976 ms  109.073 ms  97.822 ms
4  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9)  98.264 ms  109.266 ms  129.833 ms
5  redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1)  130.054 ms  148.330 ms  147.908 ms
6  www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10)  161.821 ms  166.220 ms  153.836 ms

pinging 160ms to the gateway again now?

was perfectly ok yesterday/last night :( this is getting annoying
e6400 @ 3.2Ghz 38°C 45°C | ATI X1900XT | P5W DH | ss: linux | osx
migration complete - sync 5mb 500k - stable low ping times
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 22
User actions