High pings again

[Rik]

Pretty impressive, Mo. 

[Gary]

Mines not as impressive

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

C:\Users\>tracert www.idnet.net

Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     2 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.0.1
  2    77 ms    45 ms   113 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
  3    78 ms    76 ms    67 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

  4   102 ms    98 ms    76 ms  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
  5    73 ms    77 ms    81 ms  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
  6    64 ms    60 ms    49 ms  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

[Fox]

You need to try harder Gary, I have just rebooted my router (again) so I am out of the competition for an hour or so until my ping goes back up.

I have just been on the phone with IDNet (Miriam.... sounds like a nice girl, shame I am married  ). Sent her a lot of info (ping, tracert, line stats and a full connection analysis from VisualRoute SupportPro) and I am waiting to hear back. I hope that she may be able to get to the bottom of my, or should i say our, problems

[karser]

Just had the router off for an hour & no improvement...again:

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

C:\Documents and Settings\Karser>ping www.idnet.net

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 121ms, Maximum = 147ms, Average = 138ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Karser>

[Rik]

There's nothing anyone can say here that's going to help you, unfortunately. Some people are affected, some are not. I've checked with IDNet twice today, and the network is fully balanced again and there's ample headroom. That leaves an equipment fault affecting some users but not others, or BT capacity issues at exchanges and in backhaul. TBH, my suspicion is that BT are not investing enough in the current network because their future is with, initially, WBC and then FTTC. I can't prove this, though, and getting hard data is impossible.

The best advice I can give you, therefore, is that if ping times matter to you, you should migrate and see if someone else can do better for you.

[Fox]

C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com

Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 124ms, Maximum = 196ms, Average = 154ms


Beat ya...nah nah nah

[Gary]

C:\Users\Fox>ping www.idnet.com

Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 124ms, Maximum = 196ms, Average = 154ms


Beat ya...nah nah nah

[Steve]

Does any one know of the pathway an adsl2+ signal takes from the exchange to the ISP? Is there a common pathway to the RAS and home gateway or is it different than adsl max

This is the information I was looking for

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/21cn_broadband.php

I presume with iDnet we are talking WBMC It will be interesting to see if the ipstream connect to the hostlink improves the situation for some users.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Gary]

There's nothing anyone can say here that's going to help you, unfortunately. Some people are affected, some are not. I've checked with IDNet twice today, and the network is fully balanced again and there's ample headroom. That leaves an equipment fault affecting some users but not others, or BT capacity issues at exchanges and in backhaul. TBH, my suspicion is that BT are not investing enough in the current network because their future is with, initially, WBC and then FTTC. I can't prove this, though, and getting hard data is impossible.

The best advice I can give you, therefore, is that if ping times matter to you, you should migrate and see if someone else can do better for you.

Its the fact pages take an age to load Rik, with my throughput and latency it was abysmal this afternoon browsing, and since I have the choice of Bt, BT or BT I am stuffed, so are you saying that's it for all non WBC    I'm going back to bed 

[Rik]

I presume with iDnet we are talking WBMC It will be interesting to see if the ipstream connect to the hostlink improves the situation for some users.

We'll know in a few months, Steve.

[Steve]

It no good for you Gary but my adsl max on .net is fine at present (with the odd spike).

PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=17.022 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=15.859 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=17.877 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=16.629 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=17.221 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=30.246 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=19.772 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=31.462 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=19.013 ms

[Rik]

Its the fact pages take an age to load Rik, with my throughput and latency it was abysmal this afternoon browsing, and since I have the choice of Bt, BT or BT I am stuffed, so are you saying that's it for all non WBC    I'm going back to bed  

I'm saying the vast majority of customers are not having problems, Gary, so we either assume a small group are connected to a faulty piece of IDNet kit, which I would hope would not be the case, or that BT are under-investing in capacity, both VP and backhaul. If it's the former, a change of ISP may produce a change of VP. If it's the latter, the pain is inescapable without going LLU. The best advice we can now give members is that if the service is not acceptable, then try another ISP. It may not produce an improvement, but it may be cheaper and, therefore, more acceptable.

[Gary]

It no good for you Gary but my adsl max on .net is fine at present (with the odd spike).

PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=17.022 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=15.859 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=17.877 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=16.629 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=17.221 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=30.246 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=19.772 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=31.462 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=19.013 ms

I seem to b trapped between a rock and a hard place, and no easy answer, tbh if this is how its going to be on most BT ISP's on non WBC lines I am really considering retiring the laptop, and ending the line, because I am paying to much for to little, its not worth it, and I am not going into a long contract on adsl max   so what do I do  

[Gary]

I'm saying the vast majority of customers are not having problems, Gary, so we either assume a small group are connected to a faulty piece of IDNet kit, which I would hope would not be the case, or that BT are under-investing in capacity, both VP and backhaul. If it's the former, a change of ISP may produce a change of VP. If it's the latter, the pain is inescapable without going LLU. The best advice we can now give members is that if the service is not acceptable, then try another ISP. It may not produce an improvement, but it may be cheaper and, therefore, more acceptable.

I see your point but most small ISP's charge the same, and I do not want a years contract with  BT Adsl Max, thats like shooting yourself in the foot, and its still not much cheaper really as I have no other alternative to Adsl Max. Damned if you do, damned if you don't it seems, thanks to BT.

[Rik]

How about trying someone like AAISP, who say they will fix your line problems or your money back?

[Gary]

How about trying someone like AAISP, who say they will fix your line problems or your money back?

I thought of that but my peak useage so far this month is 8.79Gb so thats a no no, looks as though I have to ride it out Rik, which makes me fairly unhappy but at least its only a one month contract, you have to look at the bright side 

[Rik]

Zen or Newnet?

[Gary]

Zen or Newnet

True but if its BT I am going to get the same issues, changing providers is a pain Rik, especially if there is nothing wrong, I see familiar threads across the ISP's threads, enough to think this will not go away on its own, Rik.  I'll just have to see. Thanks for the advice    you really need a Karma without a happy face for moments like this 

[quandam]

These posts are really sad We all appreciate Riks efforts to shore up the 'problems' for IDNet, thanks Rik.

However, it would be nice to have some input from IDNet support rather than leaving the 'dirty work' to dear old Rik who deserves a medal in my opinion

[zappaDPJ]

 

[Gary]

I think I will have to sit it out, reduce my useage and drop to a cheaper tarrif till things either change or I get another option, which could be a long time, so best not worry.

[jimc]

mmm im suffering today as well but it has been pretty bad for a while
I just put it down to exchange congestion

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

>ping www.idnet.co.uk

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 139ms, Maximum = 158ms, Average = 149ms

>ping www.idnet.co.uk

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 96ms, Maximum = 159ms, Average = 116ms

[jimc]

just reset my router and much the same

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

>ping www.idnet.co.uk

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

Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 163ms, Maximum = 209ms, Average = 189ms

>ping www.idnet.co.uk

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 135ms, Maximum = 193ms, Average = 160ms

[mist]

Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 36ms, Maximum = 40ms, Average = 37ms

C:\Users\Mist>ping idnet.net

Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 115ms, Maximum = 140ms, Average = 125ms

Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test:  -provides background information.
   Your DSL connection rate: 4640 kbps(DOWN-STREAM),  448 kbps(UP-STREAM)
   IP profile for your line is - 4000 kbps
   Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 1211 kbps

consecutive pings swinging about somewhat plus rather low throughput on GW5 !!!!!

[jimc]

Should say I am on GW5 adsl max

regards
Jim