On the subject of latency any noticed a drop in speed this morning and sort of now? This is IDNets own TBB meter and you can see the red curtain descending I'm down to 39Mbps from 63Mbps
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/3e9f40bbdf719aef79db49d8d5f4522c.png)
Yes, Gary, I've seen this a few times recently on my connection, roll on Friday when I switch to FTTC hopefully it'll disappear :fingers:
this is my TBB graph for today: -
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/250047161362e92df41fdeaaf6d69f71-15-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/250047161362e92df41fdeaaf6d69f71-15-04-2015.html)
I've seen another couple of IDNet connections doing the same.
My connection has been dreadful for a couple of weeks or more. When I attempted to download my email last night, it stalled and wouldn't let me reconnected to the server because it thought I was still connected. Basically I can't stay connected to anything and my BQM shows why.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/419d30d230844a7ef08dd706f968e7e6-15-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/419d30d230844a7ef08dd706f968e7e6-15-04-2015.html)
I've not managed to get through to support yet but I'll try again tomorrow.
I thought it was just my connection...
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/15e51e6d6e6455e6b13c98433689bd90-15-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/15e51e6d6e6455e6b13c98433689bd90-15-04-2015.html)
It started about a month ago and has been getting slowly worse... I've been on to support for a week or so, they say they cant see anything wrong :mad:
I have to say that I don't think support are as helpful as they used to be when I joined.
edit- I didn't realise it was also showing on IDNet's own BQM :eyebrow:
Quote from: Bill on Apr 15, 2015, 18:31:17
It started about a month ago and has been getting slowly worse...
Partly for my own "amusement" I've been compiling a document showing my BQMs since the beginning of March (a bit before it started going pear-shaped), I've converted it to pdf and there's a link here (http://cust120-dsl53.idnet.net/~billford/images/BQMs.pdf) for anyone interested (it's only about 1.3MB).
Does the pattern look familiar to anyone?
Looks similar to what we had 18 months ago to me, packet loss during working hours!
Yes, it reminds me very much of that too :(
I have a similar pattern but to be honest I've given up on it. I'll be moving soon and I've decided when I do I'll go with two connections, one with Sky which is pretty much free and one with another cheap provider. I've had so much down time since I've been with IDNet I've decided to go for uptime rather than quality of connection. And to be honest the quality of connection has been dire anyway.
Can't say I blame you, but generally I've been quite happy with IDNet and down time hasn't been a problem for me.
But at the moment I'm getting sub-TalkTalk quality for IDNet prices, support are either stonewalling or being evasive and I'm not happy :mad:
I don't want to leave IDNet, and nor do I want to switch suppliers and find myself with the same problem along with a year's contract... but AAISP will allow you to leave for free if you migrate in with a problem they can't fix. It's something to be considered.
Speed test performed a couple of minutes ago:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/142913453716461967227.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=142913453716461967227)
It's an 80/20 line :bawl:
It's different than last time seeing packet loss late evening as well, I can see a BT and a Plusnet TBBQM neither of which are showing any packet loss.
I should have read your earlier post a bit more carefully.
This is very similar to the problem that Zap and I (at least) were having about a year ago, not 18 months. Sorry about that :red:
That was solved (for me) by switching me to a non-BT SVLAN (don't know who, it's NDA'd), but it means I can't blame BT this time :dunno:
To be honest I'd relish a TalkTalk grade internet connection right now. I've been trying to carry out a minor server upgrade tonight but I just can't do it. My other half can't access her email and my daughter can't stay logged into her university portal (not good while she's revising for her finals).
I was going to keep this to myself but what the hell. I did have cause to ring IDNet support about a month ago as I had no connection whatsoever. The level of support I received was so bad I actually asked if I was talking to out of hours support. IDNet seem to be going down the pan.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4292477553.png)
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/419d30d230844a7ef08dd706f968e7e6-15-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/419d30d230844a7ef08dd706f968e7e6-15-04-2015.html)
The similarity between your BQM and mine is depressingly striking... especially just before 9am.
I had a situation where my wan port seems to provide no throughput, I assumed it was my router but its not, a second router shows the same stalls and nothing is listed in the logs. Since I am no longer in contract with FTTC now I could move to Zen, I wont go to Sky because I refuse to be forced or have to faff about as you have to use their dire router. I also wont go to BT as I cannot abide out sourced telephone support, that's just my own personal view. So Zen it would have to be and I loath entering new contracts. I have not contacted IDnet over this but maybe a mention on facebook which seems to draw attention may be in order. :eyebrow: <sigh> Just noticed my line dropped totay at 15:18 not sure but its possible that the ECI rollout for G.inp may be underway, or just a glitch.
Quote from: Gary on Apr 15, 2015, 23:02:25... but maybe a mention on facebook which seems to draw attention may be in order. :eyebrow: <sigh>
I hadn't thought of that :D
But I don't have a Facebook (or Twitter) account anyway...
I thought about Zen but they don't do IPv6... along with that and wanting a static IP sure does cut down the options :eek4:
I was berated last time I did that :evil: odd that I had a drop at 3pm today, seems in line with G.inp but I don't know if the ECI rollout has started, I lost about 1 Mb so nothing to moan about apart from that not much has changed, :dunno: Since I cannot unlock a ECI modem I cant see if G.inp has been added. All I can say is as you mentioned bill the options are not that great and I was totally happy with my connection.
Quote from: Gary on Apr 15, 2015, 23:24:44
I was berated last time I did that :evil:
Stuff that... I work on a simple principle- I'll stop complaining about IDNet when IDNet stop doing things to complain about.
I wondered about G.inp... I've got a Huawei modem so in theory I could check for G.inp, but I cba'd to unlock it ;D No doubt it would give me a lot of information about my connection, but there's sod all I could do about it so why bother? :dunno:
The symptoms are wrong anyway- it hasn't happened suddenly- slowly got worse over the last month or thereabouts, and the abrupt onset at ~9am and the consistent improvement just before midnight makes me think of one thing only- insufficient bandwidth somewhere.
If it's not in the carrier I've been transferred to then it's in IDNet, and if neither of them can see it then it's because they're not looking hard enough.
Agreed, the drop I had today could have been G.inp on ECI cabs, but the latency issue today and recently smacks of IDNet again letting things possibly slide as before. Since their own BQM shows the issue they cant have much in the way to argue about, if this turns into a charade again of they said we said I'm just going to move on sadly. Plusnet seem to be having issues at this time as well acording to some at TBB. There is also a lot of BT works going on at places like Faraday.
Just spoke to support, sent them the TBB BQM from yesterday showing the packet loss and they said they could not see any issues :eyebrow: What can I say, its there in blood red!
Bricks normally are, it's not as if people have been down this path before either!
It disappoints me to say it but I'm not particularly surprised, IDNet seem to be in full denial mode.
I can't help wondering if they want to get shot of the consumer ISP side of the business and have decided to simply stop supporting it.
Quote from: Bill on Apr 16, 2015, 11:11:59
It disappoints me to say it but I'm not particularly surprised, IDNet seem to be in full denial mode.
I can't help wondering if they want to get shot of the consumer ISP side of the business and have decided to simply stop supporting it.
It makes you wonder, Might have to have a chat with Zen. Saying that looking on psp83's BQM monitor there is red on that, not as bad as IDNets but its still there.
Quote from: Gary on Apr 16, 2015, 11:17:36Might have to have a chat with Zen.
Ditto me and AAISP... but RevK's blog (http://www.revk.uk/2015/04/bt-well-fix-fault-in-40-clock-hours.html) isn't encouraging :(
It's possible that the source of the problem isn't with IDNet (though I'll take a lot of convincing) but in that case they should bloody well say so- I think that most of us are mature enough to acknowledge that sh*t happens, and make judgements based on how it's dealt with rather than the event itself.
So far IDNet aren't showing up too well.
Quote from: Gary on Apr 16, 2015, 10:44:24
Just spoke to support, sent them the TBB BQM from yesterday showing the packet loss and they said they could not see any issues :eyebrow: 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.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/3e9f40bbdf719aef79db49d8d5f4522c.html
Thanks Bill :)
My pleasure :evil:
:oops: 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. :sigh:
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Apr 16, 2015, 11:38:03
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
There's a BT one here whilst it lasts!
80f348ab78e3db7733267a62ddf00391.html](http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/80f348ab78e3db7733267a62ddf00391.png)[/url]
Support still can't see that I have a problem...
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4294000899.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4294000899)
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/801cb02509e4caec1e0f3977a4842c48-16-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/801cb02509e4caec1e0f3977a4842c48-16-04-2015.html)
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>
After I read your post I ran the same ping test and emailed support:
QuoteHi 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:
QuoteHi 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 (http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,32697.msg738343.html#msg738343) wasn't logged...
We'll see.
It should have been as I told him Simon M about it this morning :shake:
Just for reference, if it helps, here's mine. The red block is where my router was blocking the ping:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/fe02a317040f58e7e3f3f9339f102c7a.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/fe02a317040f58e7e3f3f9339f102c7a.html)
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?
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.
Quote from: Gary on Apr 17, 2015, 09:33:33... 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 :dunno:
Quote from: Bill on Apr 17, 2015, 09:54:48
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 :dunno:
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 :dunno:
Quote from: Gary on Apr 17, 2015, 10:15:40
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.
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. :bawl: Nothing is simple, I miss the days before I had a computer
Quote from: Gary on Apr 17, 2015, 11:06:22I miss the days before I had a computer
They had their plus points ;D
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.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/6d2aac1f195e3ee61f4485f89eb308c9-17-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/6d2aac1f195e3ee61f4485f89eb308c9-17-04-2015.html)
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Apr 17, 2015, 11:53:17I 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.
I've started a thread on thinkbroadband.com to see if anyone else is having issues.
To which I have replied.
Thanks 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.
I'll be interested to hear what support have to say and perhaps who said it so we can compare notes.
Sure, but I wouldn't suggest holding your breath, I'm not going to.
As for who- all my contact (email) so far has been with Simon Mulliss.
Quote from: Bill on Apr 17, 2015, 13:33:55
Sure, but I wouldn't suggest holding your breath, I'm not going to.
As for who- all my contact (email) so far has been with Simon Mulliss.
Pretty much the same here although my request for a downgrade (no point in paying for something I can't use) was handled by Brian I think.
Incidentally, I've been looking back through my BQMs and now realise this has been going on for much longer than I thought which thinking back would explain some problems I had a while ago. I should have looked into it back then but life has been rather stressful recently (see my alien theory thread) so I'm clearly not thinking straight.
Hi All,
We are still investigating this end at present and will post further as soon as we have some more news.
Please could you email the latest graph for your connection into us along with a speedtest and the make and model (firmware version if possible) of router being used across for my attention to support@idnet.com. We are not currently seeing an obvious cause but are still looking into why you are seeing this.
Kind regards,
Brian
IDNet
Done.
Quote from: brian_idnet on Apr 17, 2015, 16:45:50
Hi All,
We are still investigating this end at present and will post further as soon as we have some more news.
Please could you email the latest graph for your connection into us along with a speedtest and the make and model (firmware version if possible) of router being used across for my attention to support@idnet.com. We are not currently seeing an obvious cause but are still looking into why you are seeing this.
Kind regards,
Brian
IDNet
These posts sound very familiar to all the other times customers had problems. It'll put itself right by itself in time and some people will forget about it until it comes around again
Idnet whittling down customers to concentrate on their business side of things :dunno: :dunno:
Quote from: Baz on Apr 18, 2015, 08:35:15Idnet whittling down customers to concentrate on their business side of things :dunno: :dunno:
If they wanted to do that then surely they would stop taking on new residential customers. I'd be interested to know how far widespread this issue is, as if it was across IDNet's network, it seems odd that more people haven't posted here about it. :dunno:
My graph is still showing extremely minimal packet loss, so I guess this must be just a Fibre problem:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/fe02a317040f58e7e3f3f9339f102c7a.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/fe02a317040f58e7e3f3f9339f102c7a.html)
Quote from: Simon on Apr 18, 2015, 09:35:47I'd be interested to know how far widespread this issue is, as if it was across IDNet's network, it seems odd that more people haven't posted here about it. :dunno:
I had a call from Simon D last night- it's not widespread.
He suggested one thing for me to try- I thought it had worked but it turned out that it didn't.
It gave me some ideas though, so if the problem recurs on schedule on Monday I shall be doing some extensive testing to determine whether it could possibly be anything at my end.
Quote from: Gary on Apr 16, 2015, 10:44:24
Just spoke to support, sent them the TBB BQM from yesterday showing the packet loss and they said they could not see any issues :eyebrow: What can I say, its there in blood red!
Hi Gary, which line is this graph that you mention actually monitoring? You emailed us one that had been created with a title of "IDNet" - are you assuming this this is a graph for an IDNet-owned router? It is not a BQM that IDNet has created. Anyone can put any title they want on their BQM graph. I know it's not on your line because your router does not respond to ping. If you could please enable ping response on your router and then we can run some tests on it for you?
S
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Apr 17, 2015, 13:01:22
I'll be interested to hear what support have to say and perhaps who said it so we can compare notes.
Hi Zap
I can see from our tickets that there have been large bursts of downloading on your line that are a surprise to you. As requested, please can you try connecting a laptop direct into your modem and establishing a PPPoE connection that way, so that we can rule-out any issues on your LAN?
Thanks
S
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Apr 18, 2015, 10:28:32please can you try connecting a laptop direct into your modem and establishing a PPPoE connection that way, so that we can rule-out any issues on your LAN?
Hadn't thought of that test, added to the list of things to try on Monday :thumb:
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Apr 18, 2015, 10:28:32
I can see from our tickets that there have been large bursts of downloading on your line that are a surprise to you.
If you have got someone piggy-backing on your connection, changing any WiFi password might also be a good idea, switching to WPA2 encryption might be advisable, and also turning off any WPS function.
Also, perhaps ask IDNet to change your IP address. Not all "downloading" is initiated from the customer's end. My parents' connection got hit by a large amount of UDP traffic due to someone trying to scan their router for a SIP vulnerability.
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Apr 18, 2015, 10:14:43
Hi Gary, which line is this graph that you mention actually monitoring? You emailed us one that had been created with a title of "IDNet" - are you assuming this this is a graph for an IDNet-owned router? It is not a BQM that IDNet has created. Anyone can put any title they want on their BQM graph. I know it's not on your line because your router does not respond to ping. If you could please enable ping response on your router and then we can run some tests on it for you?
S
Its listed here http://craigswebsites.co.uk/ping/ as a dedicated server for IDnet, I believe one was created by your team when things went funny a few years back. I'll muck about with the router when I have time which won't be this weekend as my ill cat is taking precedent over all things 'Gary' related :'( Cheers.
Quote from: nowster on Apr 18, 2015, 16:07:25
If you have got someone piggy-backing on your connection, changing any WiFi password might also be a good idea, switching to WPA2 encryption might be advisable, and also turning off any WPS function.
Also, perhaps ask IDNet to change your IP address. Not all "downloading" is initiated from the customer's end. My parents' connection got hit by a large amount of UDP traffic due to someone trying to scan their router for a SIP vulnerability.
As far as I can see that's not what's happening. What did happen is I was having problems downloading my email and I couldn't perform a speed test so I tried to view something on iPlayer and then Netflix to see if I had any bandwidth. Both sites buffered but I did manage to perform a speed test which showed a downstream of around 2Mb/s which I sent to IDNet. I was told that the test wasn't credible because 2GB had been recorded for that period.
That made me suspect there was some line leaching occurring but I've subsequently found that not to be the case. The only other explanations are a background download occurred or IDNet support are mistaken. Regardless I can't see how a background download of 2GB over 2 hours would knock out a 80/20 FTTC connection.
I'd strongly suggest trying an IP address change in that case. It's possible that your connection is subject to a DoS attack.
For what it's worth, I am seeing nothing of this issue. The big red blip is when the BT engineer changes the batteries in my unique (read as temporarily) non-mains powered cabinet.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/f268c712e5b1520eba3946df4f8be970.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/f268c712e5b1520eba3946df4f8be970.html)
I'm not seeing anything on my fibre connection, so far either
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/4af8505c825a4f688197012d94d38e04.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/4af8505c825a4f688197012d94d38e04.html)
Mines fine at this time speed tests are good. Something happened the other day but it has not repeated for me as far as I can tell.
Mine was looking better during the day but started to go downhill at around 6.00pm.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/ffdf5cfe68dfd8ea403e7e94c56c25b4-18-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/ffdf5cfe68dfd8ea403e7e94c56c25b4-18-04-2015.html)
I'm going to take a guess that it'll be the same pattern tomorrow and then it'll go back to the Monday to Friday, 8.00am to midnight pattern. There's really no rocket science needed to know what the problem is, the question is where in the network the congestion is. And this is an identical pattern to the protracted problems I had 18 months or so ago. That was fixed after a total outage but nobody would tell me what was done to fix it.
At some point I'll run some tests directly from the modem but if this goes the same way as it did last time I'll know I'll just have to sit it out. I suspect there are other people having the same problem and when enough of them have complained to their ISPs, OpenReach will fix it.
Ditto, tho' yours is worse than mine. (Ignore the red spikes, that was me)
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/7e4c6ced9a15b6bb92ca2253960c452d-18-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/7e4c6ced9a15b6bb92ca2253960c452d-18-04-2015.html)
I'll run some more tests on Monday just to be sure that it's not my end, but it's that 9am to midnight thing that bugs me... I haven't got a single thing in the entire house that operates on that schedule!
Mines fine and the two other FTTC bqm's on Craig's are not showing your issues at all. :dunno: maybe it's local to you both, congestion possibly?
Quote from: Gary on Apr 18, 2015, 21:41:47maybe it's local to you both, congestion possibly?
I'm in Oxfordshire and I think Zap is in London so we're not local to each other in the usual sense, but what our routings are is anybody's guess :dunno:
I don't know how to post the graph but my is fine and the speed tests are coming back normal, I'm on FTTC.
Quote from: lozcart on Apr 19, 2015, 09:30:04
I don't know how to post the graph
Click "
Share Snapshot Graph", => "
Generate", copy/paste the bottom link format ("
Small Graph (500x219 px) - BBCode (for forums; not yet supported on thinkbroadband forums)") into your post- that's it.
(edit to add- you can check that it works by using "
Preview", always a good idea anyway when posting links!)
No need to do it if it's looking fine, we'll believe you :P
Thanks @Bill,
Here you are
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/657bb7b66b1e264a40afb6b3542298a6.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/657bb7b66b1e264a40afb6b3542298a6.html)
Here's mine for comparison.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/f0e2065429f1ff011fce975c0ab90d97-19-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/f0e2065429f1ff011fce975c0ab90d97-19-04-2015.html)
Just like yesterday it's been better than it was Mon to Fri, I was able to watch F1 this afternoon with some occasional buffering. It's not so good now though, I'm getting a lot of major lag spikes and my latency is all over the place. Throughput is down but acceptable, nowhere near as bad as it was in the week.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4302004698.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4302004698)
Very similar to mine, as expected :(
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/bcb63bb832348afb5a5523b93cece685-19-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/bcb63bb832348afb5a5523b93cece685-19-04-2015.html)
From 3pm to 5pm, and again from 7pm to 9pm (times approx, indicated by the red marker spikes) my connection was PPPoE from a MacBook direct to the modem, running on battery with no apps, just the OS. (edit- with wireless and IPv6 off)
Comparing it with yours, which is usually a bit worse than mine, I think it rules out my LAN as being the cause.
(The big red spike at ~10:30 was me finding out that I'd forgotten how to set up a PPPoE connection on a Mac :eek4:)
@lozcart: Actually, I think your BQM is showing a "lite" version of what Zappa and I are seeing on ours.
Exactly as I predicted my connection has become completely unusable again today. Why support can't see this from their side is utterly beyond me.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/15b4f8a199d66422a7976c3745d4cc7d-20-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/15b4f8a199d66422a7976c3745d4cc7d-20-04-2015.html)
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4302992802.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4302992802)
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=26ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=52ms 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=43ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=28ms 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=58ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=56ms 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=38ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=56ms 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=47ms TTL=62
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.207:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 90, Lost = 10 (10% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 100ms, Average = 45ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
And just to be sure that I've done everything required of me, here's the same data from a PPPoE connection.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/15b4f8a199d66422a7976c3745d4cc7d-20-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/15b4f8a199d66422a7976c3745d4cc7d-20-04-2015.html)
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4303033796.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4303033796)
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=26ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=63
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=63
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=63
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=63
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=63
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=63
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=63
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=63
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.207:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 93, Lost = 7 (7% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 75ms, Average = 40ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
My Router = Netgear Wireless-G WGR614v10 with the latest firmware
But let's be clear, the above data was gathered using a PPPoE connection.
At about 08:30 today I disconnected my router from the modem and used the MacBook to set up a PPPoE connection, as I did (twice) yesterday.
Apart from a couple of checks to make sure the connection was still live I did nothing whatever on the internet for the next two and a half hours or so.
BQM:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/1491b6e6fea6813cfccbe0233832002f-20-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/1491b6e6fea6813cfccbe0233832002f-20-04-2015.html)
The problem may or may not be with IDNet but it sure as hell isn't on my LAN.
About 11:45 I swapped the modem for a spare, same type- HG512, model 3B.
You can see the spike, let's see what happens now...
No issues here, and the other two FTTC BQM's on craigs (not the dedicated IDnet one) since I'm not sure if that is IDNets as Simon D seems to think its not, show no issues like yours at all, Bill. I think last week was a read herring so to speak. Something occurred but may have been out of IDnets network, and my loosing sync with the ECI cab could have been a engineer fiddling (all ECI cabs have to have warming plates put in them as ECI Cab ventilation allows to much moisture in :eyebrow: so I imagine with that, vectoring cards being put in cabs that and usual line card work going on there will be bumps on the way, also ECI G.inp seems to have ground to a halt. Its odd that you and Zap seem to have tandem issues though, what it is :dunno: Hope it gets sorted soon once and for all.
It seems it has to be something common with Zap's and Bill's connections, although they are not in the same locality. Same equipment? :dunno:
There's a little bit of redness on mine this morning, but nothing too bad.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/fe02a317040f58e7e3f3f9339f102c7a.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/fe02a317040f58e7e3f3f9339f102c7a.html)
Quote from: Gary on Apr 20, 2015, 12:09:53Its odd that you and Zap seem to have tandem issues though
Yes it is, but as we're nowhere near each other, use different routers and different systems (Zappa, afaik, uses Windows, I use OS X and Linux) I don't see how it's likely to be anything on our systems... it's weird :(
Zappa's seems to have suddenly cleared up... what did he do?
Mine is still ok as well:-
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/4c18ee8b6beb88c79899a6a19551a5b3-20-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/4c18ee8b6beb88c79899a6a19551a5b3-20-04-2015.html)
Quote from: Bill on Apr 20, 2015, 12:29:30
Zappa's seems to have suddenly cleared up... what did he do?
Unplugged it? ;D :out:
Tbh that was my first thought too, but then realised that would give solid red!
Quote from: Bill on Apr 20, 2015, 12:29:30
Zappa's seems to have suddenly cleared up... what did he do?
I lost my rag while on the phone to support, 30 minutes later (according to my daughter) the Internet started working.
Compare these stats with what I posted earlier.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/15b4f8a199d66422a7976c3745d4cc7d-20-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/15b4f8a199d66422a7976c3745d4cc7d-20-04-2015.html)
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4303358409.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4303358409)
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=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.207:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 19ms, Average = 18ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
Well, I'd prefer to avoid doing that, hopefully whatever happened to yours will happen to mine :fingers:
Mine is improving, but a gentle decline in latency doesn't give me that warm feeling that it won't change its mind again...
No idea what they did, Zap?
I've just had a long chat with Brian, they did nothing and they are totally baffled. They are sending out a different modem/router to see what effect that might have.
Quote from: Simon on Apr 20, 2015, 14:11:04
No idea what they did, Zap?
Wish we could take the credit but we've not found anything that we *can* fiddle with to change things. All we can see is that Zap downloaded a lot between around 11am and noon - does that tally with your activity this morning Zap?
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Apr 20, 2015, 14:34:03
Wish we could take the credit but we've not found anything that we *can* fiddle with to change things. All we can see is that Zap downloaded a lot between around 11am and noon - does that tally with your activity this morning Zap?
It does Simon. My daughter downloaded a TV program to avoid stream buffering.
Quote from: Bill on Apr 20, 2015, 14:04:00
Well, I'd prefer to avoid doing that, hopefully whatever happened to yours will happen to mine :fingers:
Mine is improving, but a gentle decline in latency doesn't give me that warm feeling that it won't change its mind again...
Yours does seem to have improved slightly at exactly the same time as mine improved substantially. I wonder if it would be worth a modem/router reboot?
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Apr 20, 2015, 14:41:25
Yours does seem to have improved slightly at exactly the same time as mine improved substantially. I wonder if it would be worth a modem/router reboot?
The time resolution on those BQMs isn't good enough to be completely sure, but I think it was just after that abrupt drop that I swapped the modem for a spare.
My feeling at the moment is not to touch
anything for a few days... if it seems to be working, don't try to fix it :P
Quote from: Simon_idnet on Apr 20, 2015, 14:34:03All we can see is that Zap downloaded a lot between around 11am and noon - does that tally with your activity this morning Zap?
I've just been replacing Ubuntu 14 with Linux Mint 17 on an old (and slow!) laptop- about half a gig of updates etc to download which went as sweet as you like.
Quote from: Bill on Apr 20, 2015, 14:52:20
My feeling at the moment is not to touch anything for a few days... if it seems to be working, don't try to fix it :P
Probably a wise move :)
There's something really odd going on. Yesterday when I disconnected my router to perform tests using a PPPoE connection into the modem it miraculously fixed all my problems. Today I installed the Billion modem/router supplied by IDNet to test my connection. It's early days but it looks like I'm back to square one. I'm on now on a new IP to see if that was a factor but it doesn't seem so. At some point soon I'm going to try continually rebooting the modem/router to see if I can force a decent connection.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/5158570900c22709730d018a1f6952cd-21-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/5158570900c22709730d018a1f6952cd-21-04-2015.html)
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4306110536.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4306110536)
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=32ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=23ms 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=21ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms 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=20ms 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=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms 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=24ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=25ms 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=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=50ms 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=23ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=62
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=25ms 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=36ms TTL=62
Reply from 212.69.36.207: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=62
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.207:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 95, Lost = 5 (5% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 62ms, Average = 24ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Apr 21, 2015, 15:13:29
There's something really odd going on.
There is indeed- just replied to a "How's it going?" email from Simon D, saying basically "Not brilliant, but better than it has been recently".
I may have spoken too soon :(
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/489b7005d9f54feaaa66dcb02d789582-21-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/489b7005d9f54feaaa66dcb02d789582-21-04-2015.html)
My Billion arrived today but I was out shopping- I'll pick it up tomorrow.
edit- so as not to give the wrong impression, that big spike at about noon was me tripping over the modem's power lead :red:
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...
(http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=32697.0;attach=12464;image)
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.
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.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4306322410.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4306322410)
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>
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 :dunno:
I did speak too soon earlier- packet loss is around 5%, speedtest:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/142963522317216258803.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=142963522317216258803)
:bawl:
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 :(
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 :-\
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 :-\
Well, I don't think iDNet will have bought their broadband service from a major supermarket chain. :evil:
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. :evil:
They're just getting customers prepared for the migration to Talk Talk. :evil:
What vdsl router do they send out, is it the 8800NL?
No, the 8800AXL (https://www.idnet.net/assets/8800AXL.pdf)
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.
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 :P
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 :P
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. :)
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.
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. ;D
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 :shake:
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://forums.thinkbroadband.com/plusnet/f/4404279-congestion-at-peak-times.html?vc=1)
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/f2b4bb2f0aaba9da79dd95859676ee6b.html (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/f2b4bb2f0aaba9da79dd95859676ee6b.html)
I was cautiously optimistic that it might be improving on Thursday:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/a23a1355b470ab6267333a1cec40e7ce-23-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/a23a1355b470ab6267333a1cec40e7ce-23-04-2015.html)
Then along came Friday:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/baa339a62d3b4eb23da8d0abf863b18f-24-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/baa339a62d3b4eb23da8d0abf863b18f-24-04-2015.html)
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 :mad:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/1a69f2a982de08a098534127c441729d-25-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/1a69f2a982de08a098534127c441729d-25-04-2015.html)
What's yours up to Zap?
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.
(http://www.ispreview.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/2015-article-illustrations/g_inp_interleaving_fallback.gif)
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 (http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/4404775-bt-openreach-briefs-fttc-fibre-broadband-isps-on-ginp-issue.html) and later ones (switch to flat mode).
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 (http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/4404775-bt-openreach-briefs-fttc-fibre-broadband-isps-on-ginp-issue.html) and later ones (switch to flat mode).
I think the ECI cabs are also an issue now :sigh: 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.
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 :evil:
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 :evil:
If you are on a Huawei cab and have a HG612 then you will have no issues with G.inp anyway, Bill.
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. :P
(At home I have 120Mbps/12Mbps cable. My parents are the IDNet customers.)
Quote from: Bill on Apr 25, 2015, 08:18:12
What's yours up to Zap?
I really can't say, although the BQM doesn't show it and my PC seems to think it's connected to the Internet, I have almost no throughput i.e. web pages take minutes to resolve or never connect at all. I've no idea what's going on.
This is getting silly... are you still using the Billion, or have you tried reverting to the Netgear?
I still don't know what's going on. Windows diagnostics thinks I was connected but it still showed sporadically as being down on the network icon. Checking the speed of throughput on the Local Area Connection Status pop-up I could literally count the bytes off making my throughput speed somewhere in the region of 120 bytes per minute.
I rebooted my PC a few times, same result. I restarted the Billion, same result. I changed the network cable, same result. I then plugged the network cable into another port on the Billion and everything burst into life. However when I tested the first port with a laptop it worked :slap:
So, my connection. It's been better insofar as I haven't been getting 10-30 second lag spikes and there's been no significant packet loss. My latency is less, less stable if that makes sense but it's still nowhere near what I'd expect on an FTTC connection (it's still four times higher than it was a couple of months ago). I still have exactly the same pattern of background chatter for want of a better term but it's impact has been significantly reduced. As expected things are also looking better because it's the weekend.
The short version, the problem remains but it appears to be less of a problem.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/53ff1b389b938c50c5c78c38240e2d5b-25-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/53ff1b389b938c50c5c78c38240e2d5b-25-04-2015.html)
Once again, prior to midnight your BQM is remarkably similar to mine... the problem may have reduced somewhat but, lacking any explanation as to why, I can think of no good reason why it shouldn't simply come back again.
Especially if it is traffic related- internet traffic levels only go in one direction :(
I agree. I'm definitely not holding my breath at the moment.
Yesterday's BQM:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/3ee40d3403827e307a511af2d05308d6-27-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/3ee40d3403827e307a511af2d05308d6-27-04-2015.html)
Not good... didn't affect browsing etc too much, but the indicated congestion also showed up on a tbb speedtest:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/143015308897845380285.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=143015308897845380285)
The low single single-thread speed compared to the six-thread is indicative of congestion somewhere: Link (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/faq/sections/flash-speed-test.html#338).
I have noticed on the IDNet BQM that at around 10:00pm the last two nights there has been a significant increase in latency which is mirrored in my own BQM.
Now that the weekend is over it's back to the same pattern for me.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/b63376ba2579ca20aef81a818b86e04a-28-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/b63376ba2579ca20aef81a818b86e04a-28-04-2015.html)
One thing I think I can say now is whatever the problem is, it's not having the same impact as it was a week ago. There's nowhere near as much packet loss and my latency while high is confined to a much narrower band of extremes. Throughput is generally better although it's still very erratic.
That probably explains me dying and other loading glitches playing Destiny online when in a fireteam as what I'm shooting at is not there anymore >:(
Tuesday's:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/c4e0c9842467e0f6d254888a321d44dd-28-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/c4e0c9842467e0f6d254888a321d44dd-28-04-2015.html)
Not perfect, but if it stays like that I'll stop complaining... :fingers:
But I'd be happier still if I knew what changed :dunno:
I agree, some indication of what's been done would certainly help give me a little more confidence for the future. Here's my monitor for the same period.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/b63376ba2579ca20aef81a818b86e04a-28-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/b63376ba2579ca20aef81a818b86e04a-28-04-2015.html)
They've aligned the Dilithium crystals Zap. :)
They (or BT sorry Openreach) have probably replaced something somewhere.
Probably :)
And another day passes, with a slightly cleaner BQM:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/8c5b451c17db2d41bece5e8e573a5106-29-04-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/8c5b451c17db2d41bece5e8e573a5106-29-04-2015.html)
:fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers: :fingers:
+1! :fingers: :D
I noticed IDnets supposed official server (not sure if it is or not) is having its 10pm latency peak on craigs. But its not showing on the two other IDNet graphs. Simon D said it wasn't theirs so who knows. :dunno: My speeds are fine, just keep that ECI **** up of G.inp away from my line. ;D F.E.C.K is censored here ::)
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/3e9f40bbdf719aef79db49d8d5f4522c.png)
Great news Bill, that looks much better :) :fingers:
Quote from: Gary on Apr 29, 2015, 22:48:49
Great news Bill, that looks much better :) :fingers:
I'm desperately trying to avoid feeling even slightly optimistic in case the Great God of Fibre changes his mind... we need a smiley showing a geek in prayer :P
Quote from: Gary on Apr 29, 2015, 22:47:28
I noticed IDnets supposed official server (not sure if it is or not) is having its 10pm latency peak on craigs. But its not showing on the two other IDNet graphs. Simon D said it wasn't theirs so who knows. :dunno:
As I observed above, I see the same blip in latency on my own BQM
I've had to switch back to my BT/Netgear hardware. The WiFi on the BiPAC 8800NL seems unusable, so slow it took the best part of 5 minutes to send a document to the printer. I tried a reboot, different settings but I couldn't get it to work.
Mine's been fine :dunno:
It was streaming video (from iTunes) to the MacBook earlier without a murmur, but I ran a speedtest just to see- 65Mbps down, 15Mbps up, not much slower than wired.
Odd.
It is odd, I've established it's nothing to do with proximity/signal strength. I guess it must be something to do with the way it's set up.
The first two in the list were after I switched back to the BT/Netgear hardware.
Quote from: zappaDPJ on May 02, 2015, 19:31:52
It is odd, I've established it's nothing to do with proximity/signal strength.
Probably not channel number then... unless it's on Auto maybe? That always causes problems ime.
Mine is on defaults- all I changed was the SSID and password. It selected channel 6 for itself, which seems reasonably clear (I'd probably have chosen 11 but there's not much in it).
The speedtest I mentioned was done at 5GHz, just tried one at 2.4 and it's not as good- 30 down and 9 up. But nowhere near as bad as yours.
Can't help :(
I think I've been re-routed :P
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/ab75c4524cd4045241a02c3c39615ebd-05-05-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/ab75c4524cd4045241a02c3c39615ebd-05-05-2015.html)
(Ignore the red- most of it was me. The green and yellow are looking very satisfactory so far :fingers:)
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/cb373f5b7b4b1ff45e96e8735e83bea8-05-05-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/cb373f5b7b4b1ff45e96e8735e83bea8-05-05-2015.html)
Surely that proves without a shadow of a doubt that someone, somewhere knows what's going on?
Doubtless, but who? and will we ever find out? :dunno:
BT said that they were going to be rolling-out a G.INP fix that did not cause interleaving to be enabled on a line where the modem was not training upstream retransmission they way their cabinets like it.
Quote from: Simon_idnet on May 05, 2015, 15:03:04
BT said that they were going to be rolling-out a G.INP fix that did not cause interleaving to be enabled on a line where the modem was not training upstream retransmission they way their cabinets like it.
BT were I think running a limited trial on that unless Bill was put on that. Kitz and TBB have heard nothing of this being fixed yet, Simon unless you have heard something else which would be great to know as AAISP have not updated their page on this issue either :-\ Still no information on ECI cabinets and modems. The G.inp rollout has stopped short of the last few Huawei cabs at this time it seems till they can work this out. Basically it seems if you have a Huawei cab get a HG612 or Broadcom modem that supports full up and downstream G.inp, and if you have ECI cabs and modems twiddle your fingers. All this started after BT's patent spat with US company ASSIA which resulted in BT shutting down all or parts of RAMbo.
Is anyone else getting what I think is a Wimbledon effect
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/b576db972b8b7fee5fd3113c5f014d54-10-07-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/b576db972b8b7fee5fd3113c5f014d54-10-07-2015.html)
getting really low speeds today - thought it was my laptop but I see from all these posts that I'm not the only one
No problems here (BQMs in sig)... but then, I'm watching the Tour de France, not the tennis :P
Yes, I'm seeing low speeds at the moment, started around 1:30 this afternoon also had it around the same time on Tuesday. :(
No problems at all here but I can see most people on IDNet currently have around 10% packet loss.
Things seemed slow to me at points yesterday, I'm sure it will get sorted. Or Wimbledon will end ;)
I think Wimbledon tests the network of every ISP and corporate in the land.
Anyone had any issues this am, I'm down to about 35Mbps from 63Mbps :-\
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4506182457.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4506182457)
Yes I am, Gary down to 12Mbps from a normal 49Mbps. :(
Quote from: Ray on Jul 15, 2015, 08:44:49
Yes I am, Gary down to 12Mbps from a normal 49Mbps. :(
At least its not just me then, Ray :( Wonder if something outside of IDNets network has gone a bit bonkers
My Pings are great though shame about download speed :(
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4506191513.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4506191513)
There is some scary red showing on a few BQM's though right now, Ray.
My pings are around normal but download speeds way down, also noticed some red appearing on my BQM graph as well.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4506198523.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4506198523)
Quote from: Ray on Jul 15, 2015, 08:53:34
My pings are around normal but download speeds way down, also noticed some red appearing on my BQM graph as well.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4506198523.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4506198523)
Probably worth calling IDNet
This is plain silly now, bet part of BT's network has cocked up.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4506243233.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4506243233)
i am down from around 18 to 1.8 lol
Whats listed as IDnets Server BQM (not sure if it is their personal one) shows a lot of the red mist. Glad decorating is about to recommence, also using EE I get just over 100Mbps down where I live so I'm covered for now ;D
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/3e9f40bbdf719aef79db49d8d5f4522c.png
Not just me then
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/f268c712e5b1520eba3946df4f8be970.html
I'm down to about 2.6Mb, from around 12Mb on ADSL2+. ::)
And I'm down from 35Mb+ to 2.5Mb. Ping and upload fine.
I've had a word with IDNet. Currently there seems to be a large Microsoft update that is affecting a lot of IDNet's peers as well as BTs backhaul. Windows 10, perhaps? :dunno:
38Mb down to 5Mb and 6% packet loss
I called IDNet this morning and was also told about the large Microsoft Update that was causing issues
I asked them what the update was and they couldn't tell me
Do we know what this update is or are we just being fobbed off ?
It would be a strange thing to invent. Isn't the Windows 10 upgrade due about now?
All the IDNet BQMs that I can see have had approximately 10% packet loss (spiking up to 20%) since 8.00am this morning. There are two exceptions, I have virtually no problems at all and neither does Bill. I would love to know what our connections have in common.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4506618476.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4506618476)
I didn't think the Windows 10 upgrade was due till the end of the month (could be wrong though)
Can't see any massive updates for IE or Win7 today
Just thought that if they knew the issue was caused by a massive update they'd be able to say what that update was
I thought windows 10 was the 29th July. Only other update was patch Tuesday yesterday. I would not have thought that would slo much down :dunno:
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Jul 15, 2015, 12:50:17I have virtually no problems at all and neither does Bill.
With the tbb speedtester I'm seeing up to ~50% slowdown for single-thread tests, but the 6-thread ones are normal:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/143696284904208874967-mini.png) (http://http:http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=143696284904208874967)
No problems otherwise.
How odd and that was not that long before I tested mine.
Iirc a slower single-thread test indicates some congestion somewhere, but unless it's severe it won't show on a multithread one.
Not sure but I think speedtest.net uses multithread- if I've got that right then your result and mine aren't incompatible.
Hi All,
The issue this morning/afternoon was caused by flash traffic due to large update download activity from Microsoft. Customers on the BT broadband shared services experienced congestion. Our customers with dedicated leased-lines were unaffected. We noticed a large amount of data coming from Microsoft servers (more than would be usual) and this seems to be the cause of the issue. We are continuing to monitor the situation but it is expected to resolve it self soon.
kind regards
Simon Mulliss
IDNet support
Well it seems to be happening again today :( : -
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4509117841.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4509117841)
I wondered a bit earlier if it was, but my result wasn't conclusive:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/1437046121889322725-mini.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=1437046121889322725)
It gets worse, the packet loss is also re-appearing. :(
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14370481692325404461-mini.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=14370481692325404461)
Same here again. Lots on TBB yesterday on the BT side of this.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4509222208.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4509222208)
Hi all,
Just so I can get some extra data can any of you run the speedtest.btwholesale.com test while your lines are idle? So far traffic across our network looks fine (well under 50% network usage for an example). Might be something to do with BTs backhaul but so far nothing from them regarding this.
kind regards
Simon Mulliss
IDNet support
Quote from: SimonM_IDNet on Jul 16, 2015, 13:45:15
Hi all,
Just so I can get some extra data can any of you run the speedtest.btwholesale.com test while your lines are idle? So far traffic across our network looks fine (well under 50% network usage for an example). Might be something to do with BTs backhaul but so far nothing from them regarding this.
kind regards
Simon Mulliss
IDNet support
Tried the further diagnostics and just ended up with a 500 error. <sigh>
I've just got these results from that tester, Simon: -
My own line is getting regular packet loss during the day (WNSY exchange 27,000 lines), however, another IDNet line I monitor on a different Exchange (WNMFB, 1000 lines) about 5 miles away has had no issues at all:
15/07
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/3dcdc45053b6510bf630b5c10a2e3bc7-15-07-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/3dcdc45053b6510bf630b5c10a2e3bc7-15-07-2015.html)
16/07
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/5ed0bfa374d3bfede1cec759a3b4533e-16-07-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/5ed0bfa374d3bfede1cec759a3b4533e-16-07-2015.html)
15/07
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/c092f6f1280d268d4f3289adf7525d77-15-07-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/c092f6f1280d268d4f3289adf7525d77-15-07-2015.html)
16/07
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/fa86d92384bddbacac56dbf55b7870a4-16-07-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/fa86d92384bddbacac56dbf55b7870a4-16-07-2015.html)
BT test attached. Download speed is not what it should be, but upload is fine.
This issue is still going on for me. 20% packet loss this morning. Browsing websites is like wading through glue:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/d96eec66148e9a5e38b65aebd60eef78-03-08-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/d96eec66148e9a5e38b65aebd60eef78-03-08-2015.html)
It started not long after a router reboot - wondering if the IDNet gateway I'm attached to is flooded (telehouse-gw3-lo1)? I have tried an additional reboot but still on the same gateway (not even sure there are multiple gateways these days??).
Anyone else seeing this? The other IDNet line I monitor is seeing packet loss as well, but not to the same extent:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/65870fd699a9f0c99eb8449b5d919b35-03-08-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/65870fd699a9f0c99eb8449b5d919b35-03-08-2015.html)
I ran pingplotter to idnet.com and it confirms the same. Image in attachment.
Yes, hopefully a short-lived one-off:
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/b6657621f62a101e3011eebc3d1b91c0-03-08-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/b6657621f62a101e3011eebc3d1b91c0-03-08-2015.html)
(I'm on telehouse-gw4-lo1)
Glad to know it's not just me... 20%, yuk! My VOIP calls are broken... :shake:
under 1mb for me like treacle
Same here 0.98mbps instead of 63Mbps and 2.06Mbps up not 16Mbps
Yep. Just taken me about 60 secs to login into this forum. Web browsing is next to impossible.
1.33Mb here >:(
Same here...telehouse-gw4
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/7d24a9310f4fe3c2f8430a17aef854ee-03-08-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/7d24a9310f4fe3c2f8430a17aef854ee-03-08-2015.html)
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/143859790076311485483.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=143859790076311485483)
edited to add speed test... :(
Some impact here, but not disastrous (usual is ~65Mbps):
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/143859749911817390781.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=143859749911817390781)
Wonder if it's something like this (http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,31445.msg720872.html#msg720872) again?
mines sped up to 2.9Mbps but pages are just not loading properly, packetloss I assume.
Interesting graph from a BT FTTC connection, completely unrelated to IDNet in attachment.
Ooer, missus, not looking good here
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/a78c091a7ade33cb091fc2fab0b1c810-03-08-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/a78c091a7ade33cb091fc2fab0b1c810-03-08-2015.html)
Getting this
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4553199152.png)
This is on FTTC that normally gives approx 50mbps down
Quote from: Adrian on Aug 03, 2015, 11:03:53
Ooer, missus, not looking good here
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/a78c091a7ade33cb091fc2fab0b1c810-03-08-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/a78c091a7ade33cb091fc2fab0b1c810-03-08-2015.html)
Ouch, mines crept up to 4Mbps now >:(
Mine seems to be getting back to normal now... wonder if Microsoft pushed out a Windows 10 update?
In which case this could get to be a not-infrequent occurence :(
Oh, my! I think I'll go and find my old dial up modem ;)
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/143860095741166251429.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=143860095741166251429)
Windows 10 updates a
Quote from: Bill on Aug 03, 2015, 11:24:54
Mine seems to be getting back to normal now... wonder if Microsoft pushed out a Windows 10 update?
In which case this could get to be a not-infrequent occurence :(
Windows 10 updates are peer to peer so should not cause this issue at all I would have thought.
Quote from: Gary on Aug 03, 2015, 11:30:15Windows 10 updates are peer to peer so should not cause this issue at all I would have thought.
Ah, fair enough... my LAN is (almost) a Microsoft-free zone so I wouldn't know these things ;D
Quote from: Bill on Aug 03, 2015, 11:33:41
Ah, fair enough... my LAN is (almost) a Microsoft-free zone so I wouldn't know these things ;D
I only know because I was reading about it, I don't have any Microsoft gear anymore ;D I thought my line was getting better now it seems to have slowed again :bawl:
Quote from: Gary on Aug 03, 2015, 11:30:15Windows 10 updates are peer to peer so should not cause this issue at all I would have thought.
By default, yes, but I reckon most savvy users would disable that option so as to avoid bandwidth consumption.
Quote from: Simon on Aug 03, 2015, 12:26:22
By default, yes, but I reckon most savvy users would disable that option so as to avoid bandwidth consumption.
It does seem to hammer your upstream according to reports on the web. Best to disable Wi-Fi Sense too "Windows 10 Wi-Fi Sense feature shares your Wi-Fi network with your friends" Windows 10 as far as I can tell so far is a bit of a unruly monster.
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/07/01/windows-10-wi-fi-sense-feature-shares-your-wi-fi-network-with-your-friends/
Still only 13Mbps, has IDNet had anything to say on this?
well my speeds have still not recovered I should be getting 63Mbps or there abouts downstream >:(
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4553547299.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4553547299)
Windows 10 and a new working week breaks Internet (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7083-windows-10-and-a-new-working-work-breaks-internet.html)
Seems to be back to normal(ish) speed - at least for the moment - who knows if it will last.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4554038951.png)
Quote from: Bill on Aug 03, 2015, 13:46:28
Windows 10 and a new working week breaks Internet (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7083-windows-10-and-a-new-working-work-breaks-internet.html)
A Microsoft attack on the internet then ;D
Quote from: Gary on Aug 03, 2015, 12:36:21
It does seem to hammer your upstream according to reports on the web. Best to disable Wi-Fi Sense too "Windows 10 Wi-Fi Sense feature shares your Wi-Fi network with your friends" Windows 10 as far as I can tell so far is a bit of a unruly monster.
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/07/01/windows-10-wi-fi-sense-feature-shares-your-wi-fi-network-with-your-friends/
If you leave all the default settings as they are, you're practically broadcasting every key stroke to Microsoft and goodness knows who else. Fortunately, there plenty on t'internet on how to turn the spying off.
Quote from: Simon on Aug 03, 2015, 20:06:56
If you leave all the default settings as they are, you're practically broadcasting every key stroke to Microsoft and goodness knows who else. Fortunately, there plenty on t'internet on how to turn the spying off.
im still happy with OS X I don't think would ever go back to windows now it's been six years since I changed over from Windows.
Quote from: Simon on Aug 03, 2015, 20:06:56Fortunately, there plenty on t'internet on how to turn the spying off.
Like this one (https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/770346-how-to-install-and-try-linux-the-absolutely-easiest-and-safest-way) :evil: :running:
;D
back to sub 2mb here usually 17-18
Yep, packet loss back again.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/c767c599ca98d664ecb8a5a4b474dbeb-04-08-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/c767c599ca98d664ecb8a5a4b474dbeb-04-08-2015.html)
What's strange is that the other IDNet line I monitor is not seeing the PL this morning. I just wonder if my exchange is being hit extra hard or something.... whatever it is (and can this really be all attributed to Windows 10???) it's annoying. VOIP calls are dropping out, Spotify is glitching which it never does and web pages are loading like treacle.
Getting fed up of this, TBB was showing this as Windows 10 being the issue but it makes basic browsing almost impossible. I'm wondering if AAISP and Zen are floundering with this as well. I'm usually hitting 64 Mbps and I was before 9am
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4555957963.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4555957963)
Yes I was wondering about other niche ISPs too. Sadly that page that listed lots of TBB BQMs all in one place no longer seems to load: http://craigswebsites.co.uk/ping/
It has been reported by Plusnet users. I don't know about Zen.
Quote from: Terryphi on Aug 04, 2015, 10:04:59
It has been reported by Plusnet users. I don't know about Zen.
Ive seen people posting on TBB about Plusnet recently and general speed issues, I think they are having either gateway issues or they more likely have over sold themselves, Zen was having PPP authentication issues a while back. No ISP is perfect.
Blame the Scots they were on holiday yesterday.
Seems to have eased now - quicker than yesterday.
Quote from: jameshurrell on Aug 04, 2015, 11:19:44
Seems to have eased now - quicker than yesterday.
Indeed, things seem ok now not done a speed test but I can browse fine, and bigger businesses will have their machines on a domain so sudden Windows 10 updates shouldn't happen :fingers:
Edit; running at over about half speed
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4556256903.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4556256903)
This Plusnet connection is fine
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/19ced4f4f872f5d42385f6c8964c5865-04-08-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/19ced4f4f872f5d42385f6c8964c5865-04-08-2015.html)
Quote from: Glenn on Aug 04, 2015, 12:49:41
This Plusnet connection is fine
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/19ced4f4f872f5d42385f6c8964c5865-04-08-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/19ced4f4f872f5d42385f6c8964c5865-04-08-2015.html)
Mines almost back to normal, since Plusnet use wacky traffic shapping and have much greater bandwidth and backhaul than I imagine IDNet have available, its not really a surprise that they would recover faster, or that some of their gateways may show no issues. Since IDNet have quite a lot of business customers and are no way as big as Plusnet, its whjat what you would expect I think.
Third day and my speed is now 33 down from 63Mbps yet again whats going on? :mad:
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4558653245.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4558653245)
Back to normal now, I do home this 9am thing is not going to become a regular feature :eyebrow:
It is when businesses start up, so I guess it follows that's when Windows 10 downloads would start, if indeed this is what the problem is.
I suspect the world is stuck with it :(
More, as I understand it: Windows 10 will be the last new version, and will simply be subject to continuous "enhancements" (followed by a flood of bug fixes no doubt).
Heaven help the internet when more people have switched to it and a major upgrade is released :bawl:
Zen seem to be without this issue I have noticed. Hmm
I'm not noticing any issues at the moment, and the problem does seem to be easing each day.
I'm sure if we constantly monitored Zen, we would notice that they sometimes have issues when others don't.
Quote from: Simon on Aug 05, 2015, 12:47:15
I'm not noticing any issues at the moment, and the problem does seem to be easing each day.
I'm sure if we constantly monitored Zen, we would notice that they sometimes have issues when others don't.
They do, they had PPP issues a while back, what I'm thinking is they seem to weather bandwidth issues better, then again they have much more money to invest in their network. Swings and roundabouts as always.
Quote from: Gary on Aug 05, 2015, 12:35:15
Zen seem to be without this issue I have noticed. Hmm
Andrew's tbb news item (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/i/7083.html) suggested it was worse for business-oriented suppliers:
Quote...this led to packet loss and very variable speeds across a number of medium to small business focussed providers...
Not sure how Zen's home/business split compares to IDNet's.
Quote from: Bill on Aug 05, 2015, 14:20:54
Andrew's tbb news item (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/i/7083.html) suggested it was worse for business-oriented suppliers:
Not sure how Zen's home/business split compares to IDNet's.
Zen are much bigger than IDNet and I imagine they probably have a bigger home bias to business split as IDNet are more the business supplier with home tacked on. Zen can cope they also have quite a few exchanges with their own equipment in are a pretty massive company now, net step up would be the big boys after Zen. I did have a nose around their boards and saw no mention of this issues and looking at a couple of BQM's they didn't really have much in the way of packet loss at all this am. This is the price you pay for going with a smaller provider, who do a great service I shall add. Saying that with both BT and Sky looking at 4K broadcasts over the net (think BT may have stared not sure) I would have to change to a unlimited supplier anyway at a point as smaller providers are never going to be geared up for that kind of bandwidth demand at a price I could afford, sadly.
And again, 4th day now >:(
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4561392302.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4561392302)
Still not back to where it should be, late evening early morning its fine. How long is this going on for? :shake:
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4561678231.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4561678231)
Personally I don't think it business' upgrading to Windows 10. Most if they were to upgrade, would do it via an image they have built and tested, not via an online update with their staff in charge as to what they select.
Quote from: Glenn on Aug 06, 2015, 13:13:29
Personally I don't think it business' upgrading to Windows 10. Most if they were to upgrade, would do it via an image they have built and tested, not via an online update with their staff in charge as to what they select.
I would tend to agree, Glenn. Not sure what's going on :dunno:
Mines crept back up a bit again, still not as it should be.
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4561757227.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4561757227)
Everything back to normal. I wonder if its going to fluctuate like mad again tomorrow :sigh:
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4562388564.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4562388564)
Quote from: Gary on Aug 06, 2015, 17:56:29
Everything back to normal. I wonder if its going to fluctuate like mad again tomorrow :sigh:
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4562388564.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4562388564)
I know the point is that it's not what it should be, but I'm curious to know if you can actually tell the difference between 63Mb, and the 45Mb speed you posted earlier, Gary. My speed on ADSL2+ is around 11-12Mb, and web pages load virtually instantly for me, and I can watch iPlayer, etc, without any buffering. I'm struggling to understand what the higher speeds of Fibre actually achieve.
Quote from: Simon on Aug 06, 2015, 20:07:04
I know the point is that it's not what it should be, but I'm curious to know if you can actually tell the difference between 63Mb, and the 45Mb speed you posted earlier, Gary. My speed on ADSL2+ is around 11-12Mb, and web pages load virtually instantly for me, and I can watch iPlayer, etc, without any buffering. I'm struggling to understand what the higher speeds of Fibre actually achieve.
Packetloss which is the issue not the speed drop as such which means pages don't open properly, it means browsing is slow and pages don't open properly, its like browsing though jelly that's quivering, Simon. When its working properly you would not be able to tell the difference by just browsing web pages between a 40/10 and 80/20 service but that's not why you have fibre. The higher speeds of fibre have nothing to do with browsing per se, pages will only open so fast but fibre gives give you a bigger pipe, like an ISP.
I can download a 7.5GB patch for a PS4 game, update OS X, update apps in the background on my phone and tablet, watch iplayer/youtube or actually play live online at the same time as downloading said patch on the PS4 and have a film downloading on my Sky box for later all at the same time with no major slowdown thats why its so popular in houses with multiple devices and users. Also I can send emails to people that are larger faster, say a picture that's 7Mb in a few seconds and of course much larger files that would normally take hours.
I would also say 9/10 times fibre is more stable, and the DLM works better. ADSL2+ which uses a different DLM algorithm and is more prone to noise and REIN then fibre because with ADSL/ADSL2+ services each copper pair is connected to cables running from the street cabinet to the exchange (known as the 'E-side') With fibre you loose that huge chunk of copper (or aluminium) which acts like an aerial so you don't have the E side to worry about, just the D side. You can still get noise and REIN but less often, fibre is generally considered far more stable, it has its pitfalls like crosstalk but that's what G.inp and Vectoring are for. Its a superior product all round. :) Hope that helps. Oh and with 4K Internet TV broadcasts starting this year with BT an Sky, G.fast will be the next step up to carry that much data.
You don't actually have fibre. The presentation is on copper. You have a kerbside vDSL DSLAM, fed by fibre.
Similarly, cable broadband has a last hop on coax using UHF frequencies for the down direction (a 32MHz chunk using 256QAM at about 300MHz) and VHF frequencies for the return channel (about 20MHz chunk using 64QAM centred around approx 40MHz).
Quote from: Glenn on Aug 06, 2015, 13:13:29
Personally I don't think it business' upgrading to Windows 10. Most if they were to upgrade, would do it via an image they have built and tested, not via an online update with their staff in charge as to what they select.
Only if the business is big enough (ie have enough computers):
a) to afford some sort of IT department and
b) for MS to be prepared to supply them with such an image and the details of how to modify a client to use that rather than microsoft.com.
Most aren't.
Quote from: Bill on Aug 07, 2015, 05:56:56
Only if the business is big enough (ie have enough computers):
a) to afford some sort of IT department and
b) for MS to be prepared to supply them with such an image and the details of how to modify a client to use that rather than microsoft.com.
Most aren't.
Most businesses should have their computers on a domain and therefore not allowing workers to upgrade to the first release of windows 10 in all honestly.
Quote from: nowster on Aug 07, 2015, 02:04:25
You don't actually have fibre. The presentation is on copper. You have a kerbside vDSL DSLAM, fed by fibre.
Similarly, cable broadband has a last hop on coax using UHF frequencies for the down direction (a 32MHz chunk using 256QAM at about 300MHz) and VHF frequencies for the return channel (about 20MHz chunk using 64QAM centred around approx 40MHz).
That's why the nomenclature of 'Fibre' is misleading as the last however many meters etc are coper (or aluminium) but its still better than having an Aluminium or copper E side going back to the exchange.
Quote from: Gary on Aug 07, 2015, 07:58:00
Most businesses ...
Same comment- Big ones yes, small ones no. There are more small ones than big ones.
Quote from: Bill on Aug 07, 2015, 08:04:07
Same comment- Big ones yes, small ones no. There are more small ones than big ones.
While I agree I'm pretty sure they don't want individuals updating to Windows 10 when maybe they are using code that's been designed for their small business or at the very least upsetting the status quo of functionality with all machines being on probably Windows 7 still and then suddenly IT have a headache because windows 10 came down with a truly moneumental list of tweaks that need to be done, like stopping peer to peer updates, amending wifi sense in fact the list is quite extensive. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/windows-10-doesnt-offer-much-privacy-by-default-heres-how-to-fix-it/ Long term who knows, Bill.
Quote from: Gary on Aug 07, 2015, 08:20:51... and then suddenly IT have a headache ...
That's the point- they won't
have an "IT", probably not even anyone who is is sufficiently computer-literate to
know about the tweaks, how to perform them or the possible consequences if they don't.
I'll concede that if they've been around long enough to be using Windows 7 (or even XP!) they may not have updated, but I wouldn't be confident about it.
Quote from: Gary on Aug 07, 2015, 08:20:51Long term who knows
On that we can agree completely!
I cant belive this is still Windows 10 surely >:( Ping of 105ms is crazy
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4576021794.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4576021794)
Massive packet loss again :(
I'm beginning to wonder if I made a mistake coming back to IDNet.
Yep mines getting worse, if that's possible
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/4576033996.png) (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4576033996)
Download speedachieved during the test was - 4.91 Mbps
For your connection, the acceptable range of speed is 40 Mbps-65.96 Mbps .
Additional Information:
IP Profile for your line is - 65.96 Mbps
Upload speed achieved during the test was - 10.24Mbps
Additional Information:
Upstream Rate IP profile on your line is - 20 Mbps
Every day almost at about 9am something is causing massive packetloss and its not showing on other BQM's I can see from other providers, so I cant see it being Windows 10 still. Seems although I may be wrong of course, like its something to do with IDNet. :dunno:
Yep, packet loss is back here again as well after a few days of great internet. VOIP calls keep dropping out.
(http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share-thumb/33c1f34365deca9cfca95b236d5c7471-12-08-2015.png) (http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/33c1f34365deca9cfca95b236d5c7471-12-08-2015.html)
This surely cannot be blamed on Windows 10 now after several days of no packet loss??? >:(
Its also odd how other websites open faster than the Idnetters web page, if I go to zen status (to see if any faults) it opens pretty fast (considering the packetloss) but coming back here and it takes ages to post or login. >:(
Quote from: Gary on Aug 12, 2015, 09:28:49
I cant belive this is still Windows 10 surely
Could be:
Update: It looks like Microsoft has a new update in place for Windows 10 that will finally get you out of the reboot loop hell you might have had found yourself in. (http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-10-s-broken-update-introduces-endless-reboot-loop-1301563)
(9 hours ago at time of posting)
It may be the luck of the game on your routing, I'm seeing nothing of significance.
Quote from: Bill on Aug 12, 2015, 09:57:23
Could be:
Update: It looks like Microsoft has a new update in place for Windows 10 that will finally get you out of the reboot loop hell you might have had found yourself in. (http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-10-s-broken-update-introduces-endless-reboot-loop-1301563)
(9 hours ago at time of posting)
It may be the luck of the game on your routing, I'm seeing nothing of significance.
Having a look around I'm not seeing anyone else having this kind of issue, although I may have missed posts of course. Why are IDNet taking such a hit? Are you on BT's backhaul though IDNet or someone else's Bill?
Is there any other Backhaul for FTTC than BT?
Quote from: Steve on Aug 12, 2015, 10:06:54
Is there any other Backhaul for FTTC than BT?
TalkTalk have their own backhaul connections I believe, Steve.
Quote from AAISP
"In addition to BT as a backhaul, we also have wholesale interconnects to TalkTalk. This is an alternative carrier network using their own backhaul connections (i.e. links across the country) to connect us to their equipment in telephone exchanges. The wiring from the exchange to your premises is still BT, but using an alternative carrier provides a level of redundancy - i.e. it is not likely that both BT and TalkTalk will have problems at the same time"
Quote from: Gary on Aug 12, 2015, 09:36:00
Yep mines getting worse, if that's possible
Every day almost at about 9am something is causing massive packetloss and its not showing on other BQM's I can see from other providers, so I cant see it being Windows 10 still. Seems although I may be wrong of course, like its something to do with IDNet. :dunno:
Same here, Gary, yet I've had no problem since Friday until this morning, which seems to indicate to me that it's something someone is doing on Idnet's network and judging by the timing it's their business customers doing it. :dunno: >:(
Quote from: Bill on Aug 12, 2015, 09:57:23
It may be the luck of the game on your routing, I'm seeing nothing of significance.
I think this is true - another IDNET ADSL line I monitor isn't showing anything... However it still doesn't explain it.
Apparently KB3081424 is only 325MB in size (I say only, but it is dwarfed by Windows 10 which is 3GB), so I am sceptical of that ....
I'm down from 59Mbps to about 2, again (with some lovely packet loss)
Just called IDNet and they said it's due to an Android update this time
£45 a month for a service that's virtually unusable everytime there's some type of update (which is only going to get worse). Nice
Quote from: Gary on Aug 12, 2015, 10:02:23Are you on BT's backhaul though IDNet or someone else's Bill?
As far as I understand these things I'm on somebody else's SVLAN from the cabinet, but I don't know whose. (It's NDA'd so Simon won't tell me- not that it matters much)
Quote from: coxy on Aug 12, 2015, 10:11:15
I'm down from 59Mbps to about 2, again (with some lovely packet loss)
Just called IDNet and they said it's due to an Android update this time
£45 a month for a service that's virtually unusable every time there's some type of update (which is only going to get worse). Nice
I would have thought most people with Handsets at work wont be updating Android till they get home, since hammering works wifi while updating your phones isnt something people I would imagine usually do at work. Other networks don't appear to be seeing this packetloss, for instance on a Zen BQM I can see there is nothing showing, while IDNet seems to be clobbered. I'm sure that are a lot of Android users on Zens platform who would be updating, and BT's etc. :sigh:
Quote from: jameshurrell on Aug 12, 2015, 10:08:48
Apparently KB3081424 is only 325MB in size (I say only, but it is dwarfed by Windows 10 which is 3GB), so I am sceptical of that ....
When the Win10 downloads were causing problems I saw it too, though not to the same extent as most others, so at 10% of the size it makes sense for my connection (although if it's an Android update the MS one may just be contributory rather than the prime cause).
If I look closely at my BQMs I can see a slight increase in latency (ie a touch more yellow) from ~9am to ~10am so I'm not
completely immune.
Quote from: Bill on Aug 12, 2015, 10:33:25
If I look closely at my BQMs I can see a slight increase in latency (ie a touch more yellow) from ~9am to ~10am so I'm not completely immune.
That's the other thing, Bill. Its always between 9am to 10am and by 10:45am its getting better ish, I have checked each time this happens and there is a pattern. Now I doubt that everyone is updating at the same time, and today an Android update at precisely the same time and the Windows 10 update occurred which caused packetoss. which then happened for days in a row, and vanishes at weekends.
This does remind me of an issue we had a few years back, but I could be way off course with that. Either way I don't believe this should be hitting people so hard that you cant browse, or watch a news video during those hours, especially at the price point we pay. If it was a super cheap ISP then maybe I would except a cheap service has issues, but IDNet are not a cheap service and normally things run like clockwork with them. Until the last few weeks that is :eyebrow:
Quote from: Gary on Aug 12, 2015, 10:51:33If it was a super cheap ISP then maybe I would except a cheap service has issues, but IDNet are not a cheap service and normally things run like clockwork with them. Until the last few weeks that is :eyebrow:
I don't have any quarrel with that, and I also think they could have more of a presence in this topic, but in a way that's peripheral.
What's more important is what they can do about it- that may be very little, I simply don't know.
I guess none of us will ever really know what's happening and why we are being affected.
Interesting graph here: http://www.lonap.net/bandwidth.shtml - traffic bandwidth stats for LONAP in London - see the second "weekly graph. My bouts of packet loss, specifically Monday and Tuesday last week and today (according to the TBB BQM), seem to coincide with a high or above normal levels of traffic on LONAP. Completely unscientific, but I guess it shows that a) there is more or above normal data flying around on certain days and b) some IDNet connections seem to be hit with packet loss at the same time.
Just spotted another possible explanation:
The deadline to register to vote in Labour's leadership contest is approaching as thousands of new members prepare to have their say.
The party's website crashed earlier following a last minute call on social media by supporters of left wing candidate Jeremy Corbyn. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33881487)
It wasn't me guv, honest (although I thought about it) :evil:
:lol:
;D
Are the Labour Party an IDNet customer?
They must be in a worse state than I thought. :eyebrow:
Quote from: mervl on Aug 12, 2015, 13:51:00
Are the Labour Party an IDNet customer?
More likely TalkTalk- it's all they ever do ;)
Indeed their exchange equipment is on the left when you enter.