Pings

maxping · Sep 18, 2006, 18:20:36

Quote from: browney on Sep 18, 2006, 17:55:44
I dont see how as that would mean every one would have a problem

Only the ones who do ping tests

mrapoc · Sep 18, 2006, 18:41:02

wooo me and maxping gurus!!

maxping · Sep 18, 2006, 18:42:32

Quote

Huh? I've been saying for ages that it's *office* hours, i.e. business workers. Sorry, I thought that was clear.

Most businesses i visit in my job until recently still used dial up as they didn't require a permanently on connection.

With the price between the 2 so close i doubt there are many left still using dial up , this has put more pressure on the already full to bursting exchanges so its hardly surprising we get contention during the day.

BT wont be rushing out and spending on the exchanges as the isp's will soon be putting their own equipment into the same exchanges so i guess for now we are in a catch 22 situation.

maxping · Sep 18, 2006, 18:44:10

Quote from: maxping on Sep 18, 2006, 18:20:36
Quote from: browney on Sep 18, 2006, 17:55:44
I dont see how as that would mean every one would have a problem

Only the ones who do ping tests

Yep ive always been a gob s***e

mrapoc · Sep 18, 2006, 18:45:43

well, my pings are steadily improving im glad to say - just unlucky for the minority / majority that have major problems still

maxping · Sep 18, 2006, 18:52:27

Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 18, 2006, 18:45:43
well, my pings are steadily improving im glad to say - just unlucky for the minority / majority that have major problems still

Yep mine are also looking good , wish i had £1 for every speed test and ping test ive done today

Sweet

Pinging www.idnet.net with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:34ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:27ms TTL:60
Ping statistics for www.idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 28ms

AvengerUK · Sep 19, 2006, 12:01:38

http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?jid=58e61f6e3d3d258ec640ec3f21295d2e

Like clockwork....

Anyway, ive already signed up with UKFSN - the sooner the migration, the better!

equk · Sep 19, 2006, 13:15:42

mine is exactly the same at exactly the same time and it still is pinging the gateway at 150ms.
4hours at 150ms ping to the gateway

Code Select

traceroute to www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  cisco (192.168.1.1)  1.341 ms  0.670 ms  0.672 ms
 2  192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1)  3.281 ms  3.813 ms  9.405 ms
 3  telehouse-bb-gw1-vpdn.idnet.net (212.69.63.45)  155.854 ms  149.582 ms  149.331 ms
 4  telehouse-gw-bb.idnet.net (212.69.63.9)  143.952 ms  154.285 ms  149.392 ms
 5  redbus-gw.idnet.net (212.69.63.1)  148.303 ms  149.748 ms  152.004 ms
 6  www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10)  154.747 ms  155.597 ms  155.996 ms

bttest connection:

Code Select

--- 217.41.220.142 ping statistics ---
220 packets transmitted, 220 received, 0% packet loss, time 219980ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.230/16.927/22.633/0.781 ms

equk · Sep 19, 2006, 13:27:11

also on re-sync after the bttest, the ping is exactly the same

not sure what has changed but it is worse today $:-\$

karvala · Sep 19, 2006, 13:58:09

Sorry guys...

http://www.l8nc.com/graph.php?sid=3e558fac2c207d467e5e2158e6aa1359&jid=aaa18fb159292b32e9b02f8f3ebacecf&day=today

Pinging 212.69.63.45 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=254
Reply from 212.69.63.45: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254

Ping statistics for 212.69.63.45:
Packets: Sent = 16, Received = 16, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 24ms

Solid as a rock today. Being the trouble-maker that I am, though

, I'm going to change to the USB modem for a while, and reconnect the session a couple of times to see if I can induce the problem to reappear, or if it's really gone for today.

AvengerUK · Sep 19, 2006, 15:46:03

Ive just done some tests, Reconnect 1 = 29ms reconnect 2 = 250ms reconnect 3 110ms and current 100ms....pot luck it seems!

karvala · Sep 19, 2006, 16:46:01

Quote from: AvengerUK on Sep 19, 2006, 15:46:03
Ive just done some tests, Reconnect 1 = 29ms reconnect 2 = 250ms reconnect 3 110ms and current 100ms....pot luck it seems!

Yes, undoubtedly; we've seen this in some previous posts as well. The temporary workaround seems to be to disconnect, and reconnect a few times (no 30-minute wait needed for this particular problem in my experience), until you strike it lucky, and off you go. How long it lasts after you do that before returning is anyone's guess, though unfortunately it's not generally that long during the daytime (certainly you can't find the good path, and then stay on it and have it remain good indefinitely).

maxping · Sep 19, 2006, 17:39:24

Yesterday -

Today- (i wasn't home try pinging anywhere but assume as the graph line is low i would have had low pings)

AvengerUK · Sep 19, 2006, 18:07:49

My pings have no settled down, however the circumstances in which they did involved maxing out my connection....weird!

Anyway, migration date set for the 26th

maxping · Sep 19, 2006, 19:37:20

Spoke too soon.

You can see when the connection drops and then the line jumps and I'm back to pings over 50ms but not into the 100's.

And heres the reason they have put interleaving back on f*****g BT b******s.

mrapoc · Sep 19, 2006, 19:57:18

oh man do bt TRY to p1$$ us off??

maxping · Sep 19, 2006, 20:05:23

Quote from: mrapoc on Sep 19, 2006, 19:57:18
oh man do bt TRY to p1$$ us off??

You are right there mate.

The most annoying thing is as from approx 5:30 p.m yesterday my graph was running in the sub 30ms range (as you can see in the first part of the graph above) if BT hadn't switched it back on i would be sitting here with a ear to ear grin as it would have been finally sorted.

Trust BT to screw up

One plus my pings are stable (no big spikes) just a lot higher than they were yesterday evening

Pinging www.idnet.net with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:44ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:43ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:50ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:48ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:45ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:46ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:44ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:48ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:47ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:53ms TTL:60
Ping statistics for www.idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 43ms, Maximum = 53ms, Average = 47ms

Rolacka · Sep 20, 2006, 11:39:00

well after a couple of days of stable pings , things are working about aswell as I've come to expect from idnet

Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=313ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=319ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=309ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=336ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=358ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=364ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=350ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=325ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=334ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=351ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=348ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=384ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=334ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=339ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=336ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=346ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=335ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=370ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=352ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=369ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=346ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 23, Received = 23, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 309ms, Maximum = 384ms, Average = 343ms
Control-C
^C

AvengerUK · Sep 20, 2006, 11:42:43

My pings are also like that currently

Rolacka · Sep 20, 2006, 11:44:07

And as usual leave it 5 mins or so & u get

Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 18, Received = 18, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 30ms, Average = 24ms
Control-C
^C

This really needs sorting out , this kind of instability really isnt good enough service for the price.

AvengerUK · Sep 20, 2006, 11:45:43

^^

My pings are now 100ms...there always over 50ms but range from about 60ms to 300ms.

Rolacka · Sep 20, 2006, 11:55:22

Well the problem I have with obtaining a mac & moving is finding an isp that isnt forcing the max package on me , on of the reasons I came here was that I could keep my fixed rate 2mb line & avoid the max problems, line is stable & fast enough for what I need, everywhere I look they either want a 12 month contract or they only offer the max packages $:-\$

AvengerUK · Sep 20, 2006, 12:24:14

Lots of ISP's offer the usual IPstream services (fixed) such as AOL (ring for a monthly contact!), UKFSN (Enta), Demon and others!

Rolacka · Sep 20, 2006, 14:13:06

AOL I tried a long while back & it wasnt for me, Demon I wouldnt go anywhere near after reading adslguide forums, but yes enta looks promising if a little expensive, I'll wait to see how you get on with that one, think thats the one you are moving to on the 26th, in the meantime I emailed Zen to see if I can get on a fixed line with them, I know they still have it running for existing customers but couldnt see any sign up for new ones for it, but I do have a few friends using that isp without any ping issues.

Scott · Sep 20, 2006, 15:43:15

Guys,
I hope you have been relaying all these symptoms and test results back to IDNet CS ? This is all grist to the mill for them in investigating and (hopefully) resolving this ongoing debacle ?

S