MASSIVE pings

alan · May 03, 2007, 15:43:15

Ely, Cambridgeshire

Pinging www.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=58

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 129ms, Maximum = 144ms, Average = 134ms

.

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=61

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 140ms, Maximum = 166ms, Average = 150ms

RobMc · May 03, 2007, 15:43:29

Hmmm this is quite interesting....

Using my idnet connection...

C:\Documents and Settings\rjm>tracert www.idnet.net

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

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 144 ms 142 ms 130 ms telehouse-gw3.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 152 ms 135 ms 129 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
4 49 ms 53 ms 52 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

Using my colleagues idnet connection...

C:\Documents and Settings\rjm>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 10.0.0.2
2 23 ms 25 ms 27 ms telehouse-gw3-msdp.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 18 ms 20 ms 18 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
4 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

We are both on the same exchange. Tests were done within a couple of minutes of each other. Note different gateway in hop 2.

Rob.

Rik · May 03, 2007, 15:49:57

Interesting indeed, Rob - you let him have the fast connection!

At 15:42

ping www.bbc.co.uk -n 20

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.86] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=250
Reply from 212.58.224.86: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=250

Ping statistics for 212.58.224.86:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 51ms, Maximum = 173ms, Average = 135ms

ping www.idnet.net -n 20

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=169ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=61

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 61ms, Maximum = 169ms, Average = 136ms

Namesco:

1172 d/s 275 u/s

Current profile is 2500.

Tracert at 15:48:

tracert www.idnet.net

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

1 5 ms <1 ms <1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 175 ms 170 ms 171 ms telehouse-gw3.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 131 ms 142 ms 143 ms redbus-gw.idnet.net [212.69.63.1]
4 155 ms 153 ms 155 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

We are on the same second hop, I see.

RobMc · May 03, 2007, 15:58:44

Quote from: rikbean on May 03, 2007, 15:49:57
Interesting indeed, Rob - you let him have the fast connection!

Her actually

Yes, but she only syncs at 5760 (day one of Max) and I sync at 8128. I prefer the higher max speed with greater latency over slower max speed and lower latency.

Rob.

lozcart · May 03, 2007, 16:00:45

Quote from: rikbean on May 03, 2007, 15:19:39
Have you run any pings or speed tests? If you have, could you post results please? Thanks.

Rik
I'm back at work now so can post exact results later. But from memory my sync was about 5100 and the speed test was 500kbps.

Rik · May 03, 2007, 16:03:52

OK, thanks.

wrtpeeps · May 03, 2007, 16:17:16

Date    03/05/07 16:16:28
Speed Down    458.92 Kbps ( 0.4 Mbps )
Speed Up    344.88 Kbps ( 0.3 Mbps )

problem still there.

Simon_idnet · May 03, 2007, 16:44:48

BT's terminology is Planned Engineering Works but seeing as they omitted (and have admitted) to not informing us of the works then we dispute the "planned" bit. The 'failsafe' systems in place to recover from these works have failed. As such it is now up to us to manually rebalance our pipes. Therefore, some customers may see their connections drop momentarily. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Regards
Simon

Lance · May 03, 2007, 16:45:51

Thanks for the update, Simon.

BT strike again!

Rik · May 03, 2007, 16:51:09

Thanks, Simon. Wouldn't life be easier if BT weren't involved.

Later: Just struck me, I had a PPP session loss early this morning, no loss of sync. I wonder if it's related to BT's work?

Tanzanite · May 03, 2007, 17:03:01

My speed is fine (Dorset)

Aaron · May 03, 2007, 17:05:28

Got bad pings to wow. East Sussex, South East england:

Tracing route to 80-239-149-47.customer.teliacarrier.com [80.239.149.47]
over a maximum of 10 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms firewall [192.168.1.1]
2 162 ms 178 ms 140 ms telehouse-gw3.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 135 ms 145 ms 146 ms w-s-1.lon1.arbinet.net [213.232.64.56]
4 153 ms 156 ms 160 ms Gi12-0.lon-wal-core-2.interoute.net [217.118.119.33]
5 129 ms * 115 ms Gi0-0.lon-002-inter-2.interoute.net [84.233.152.186]
6 140 ms 137 ms 129 ms ldn-b1-link.telia.net [213.248.74.217]
7 139 ms 123 ms 111 ms ldn-bb2-pos1-2-0.telia.net [213.248.74.13]
8 178 ms 181 ms 171 ms ffm-bb2-link.telia.net [80.91.249.13]
9 436 ms 150 ms 155 ms ffm-b5-link.telia.net [80.91.249.241]

Rik · May 03, 2007, 17:07:57

Quote from: Tanzy on May 03, 2007, 17:03:01
My speed is fine (Dorset)

If I post you one end of an ethernet cable, Eve...

Tanzanite · May 03, 2007, 17:09:11

lol would have to be one long cable!

Rik · May 03, 2007, 17:12:10

Unfortunately, it would rather exceed the 100m segment that ethernet permits.

tomharrison · May 03, 2007, 17:22:24

Just suffered a loss of PPP - Pings back to normal now and speeds back up to full

Tracing route to www.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms www.routerlogin.com [192.168.0.1]
2 24 ms 23 ms 25 ms telehouse-gw3.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 23 ms 25 ms 23 ms g2-2-501.cr01.hx2.bb.pipex.net [193.203.5.14]
4 24 ms 24 ms 23 ms v3953.cr05.tn5.bb.pipex.net [62.72.137.29]
5 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms g1-1-6.ar01.tn5.bb.pipex.net [62.72.140.142]
6 23 ms 29 ms 24 ms ge-0-0-0-3801.jolt-gw.cust.pipex.net [212.241.24
1.14]
7 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms secure.jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]

Trace complete.

Thanks IDNet!

Rik · May 03, 2007, 17:34:23

ping www.bbc.co.uk -n 20

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.121] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=251
Reply from 212.58.224.121: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=251

Ping statistics for 212.58.224.121:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 83ms, Average = 34ms

ping www.idnet.net -n 20

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=61
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=61

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 20ms, Maximum = 38ms, Average = 26ms

Namesco 2416/382

Apart from the few spikes in pings, normal all round.

Thanks, Simon, Miriam et al.

Lance · May 03, 2007, 17:38:08

Mine are also back to normal, after a re-sync. Another Thanks to IDNet for the quick response and resolution.

Welcome to the forum, Tom!

Rik · May 03, 2007, 17:39:25

Where are my manners? Welcome from me too, Tom.

Tanzanite · May 03, 2007, 17:41:39

Quote from: rikbean on May 03, 2007, 17:39:25
Where are my manners?

Standing in the corner with the lights off

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Waves hello

Rik · May 03, 2007, 17:43:32

lozcart · May 03, 2007, 17:52:01

Also required a re sync but now speeds back and better than normal 4320kb/s

Rik · May 03, 2007, 17:55:25

Good news.

I have to say that this thread is a good example of the way this forum can work for us all. By concentrating all the posts in one place, it's given us a chance to inform IDNet without overloading them with calls and emails, and it's allowed them to quickly find and fix the problem.

Congratulations to everyone for the work. Great team effort!

cavillas · May 03, 2007, 19:03:39

All other ISP's please take note of the way things should be done.

Philip · May 03, 2007, 20:51:42

conversation between me and my daughter, when I got home from work

meg: dad, internets knackered

me: oh heck

meg: can't get on msn

I check router, red light on

me: did you reboot the router?

meg: no

me: twit

I reboot router

me: it's working

meg: yay!

I check Idnetters

me: found the problem, it was BT's fault

meg: idiots

anyway, thanks to all at Idnet for sorting it out, and Idnetters for keeping us informed