Pings

mrapoc · Sep 20, 2006, 16:00:18

good point scott
email support@idnet.net with anything you feel is useful

karvala · Sep 21, 2006, 12:21:36

All stable here still at present

Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:14ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.86 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 17ms

AvengerUK · Sep 21, 2006, 12:29:45

Friad i cant tell till i get home...reset router to factory settings last night...didnt set IGMP rule!

CatMangler · Sep 21, 2006, 16:34:41

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping idnet.co.uk

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 136ms, Maximum = 152ms, Average = 146ms

Silly me, fancy trying to use your BB before all the business users have gone home

karvala · Sep 21, 2006, 16:59:29

Judging from my l8c graph, I've just missed a rather bad spot. Things are better now, but still somewhat variable:-

Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:34ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:32ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:68ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:43ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:39ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:28ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:25ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:29ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:68ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:70ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:52ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:58ms TTL:249
Reply from 212.58.224.81 bytes:32 Time:30ms TTL:249
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 70ms, Average = 32ms

maxping · Sep 21, 2006, 18:24:31

As you can see my Pings are stable again, i just need the interleaving turning off and i will be back in low ping land

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

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

AvengerUK · Sep 21, 2006, 21:24:23

I cant comment. Didnt get l8nc working/didnt until about 5 this afternoon, didnt do tracert until about this time also...when things seemed fine.

karvala · Sep 22, 2006, 10:11:57

Doing reverse pings at the moment as I'm at work, but it amounts to the same thing. At 9.30am, things were looking very good:-

PING 212.69.58.58 (212.69.58.58): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=5 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=6 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=7 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=8 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=9 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=10 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=11 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=12 ttl=51 time=15 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=13 ttl=51 time=15 ms

----212.69.58.58 PING Statistics----
14 packets transmitted, 14 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max/med = 15/15/15/15

But half an hour later, as the business day gets under way:-

$ ping 212.69.58.58
PING 212.69.58.58 (212.69.58.58): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=29 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=27 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=26 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=30 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=35 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=5 ttl=51 time=35 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=6 ttl=51 time=22 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=7 ttl=51 time=29 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=8 ttl=51 time=24 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=9 ttl=51 time=39 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=10 ttl=51 time=24 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=11 ttl=51 time=53 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=12 ttl=51 time=51 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=13 ttl=51 time=34 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=14 ttl=51 time=29 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.58.58: icmp_seq=15 ttl=51 time=29 ms

----212.69.58.58 PING Statistics----
16 packets transmitted, 16 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max/med = 22/32/53/29

Not it's still not bad, but is a significant depreciation from the previous one for just a half hour change. Will continue to monitor it.

AvengerUK · Sep 22, 2006, 11:01:18

It appears to be fixed my end...typical.

equk · Sep 22, 2006, 12:42:34

has been 130ms for the last 4hours here

Rolacka · Sep 22, 2006, 12:47:33

AvengerUK , did u say you are moving to Enta on the 26th I just read this over at adslguide forums;

"In relation to your original question about traffic shaping I think you have been slightly misled.

Enta do traffic shape but its only noticeable when they are short on capacity.

Traffic shaping showed up a few months ago. Enta & UKFSN denied it for some considerable time but eventually admitted it.

Boggits stated Here
In reply to:

The long terms goal is to find a solution that provides QoS so that real time traffic (eg VoIP/Citrix) is preffered over non-time sensitive (eg NNTP/p2p) BUT with the clear intent that this is to improve the end user experience rather than squeezing additional revenue by 'saving' bandwidth."

I seem to remember you being a wow player unless I'm thinking of someone else , if so then that is real trouble as I experienced on Plusnet when they introduced it, with crazy pings inside the BG's & disconnects very very similar to what Nildram have had for the last 6 months.

AvengerUK · Sep 22, 2006, 12:49:53

Yes - its no bother to me. I dont need fast speeds should Enta's QOS system come into place again. I have a freind who is on enta, and was with enta during these issues/when QOS was enabled, and the problems were neither here or there, nothing in comparison to IDnet's recent ping issues anyway. - Plus, ill be on a Office product (Premuim)

@ Equk - sorry to hear that, im sure come monday my pings will rise again - must just be a lucky day for me today

equk · Sep 22, 2006, 12:54:08

Quote from: Rolacka on Sep 22, 2006, 12:47:33I seem to remember you being a wow player unless I'm thinking of someone else , if so then that is real trouble as I experienced on Plusnet when they introduced it, with crazy pings inside the BG's & disconnects very very similar to what Nildram have had for the last 6 months.

I played WoW on plusnet and had no problems at all

As does my bro. I stopped playing ages ago but my bro still plays and had no problems at all when on plusnet?

I'm not sure people should be talking about other ISPs on idnet's support forum. Even tho it is unofficial.

AvengerUK · Sep 22, 2006, 12:58:58

Quote from: equk on Sep 22, 2006, 12:54:08
Quote from: Rolacka on Sep 22, 2006, 12:47:33I seem to remember you being a wow player unless I'm thinking of someone else , if so then that is real trouble as I experienced on Plusnet when they introduced it, with crazy pings inside the BG's & disconnects very very similar to what Nildram have had for the last 6 months.
I played WoW on plusnet and had no problems at all

As does my bro. I stopped playing ages ago but my bro still plays and had no problems at all when on plusnet?

I'm not sure people should be talking about other ISPs on idnet's support forum. Even tho it is unofficial.

Course we can....were not exactly recommending them are we? everything above and in the whole forum (mostly) is just opinions

karvala · Sep 22, 2006, 13:12:58

Still variable here:-

Pinging www.bbc.co.uk with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:38ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:25ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:49ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:87ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:73ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:68ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:74ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:54ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:59ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:80ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:89ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:76ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:53ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:39ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:69ms TTL:248
Reply from 212.58.227.71 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:248
Ping statistics for www.bbc.co.uk :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 89ms, Average = 42ms

Rolacka · Sep 22, 2006, 13:55:25

Pings just went thru the roof again for me =/

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=304ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=245ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=284ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=296ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=291ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=252ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=232ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=225ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 19, Received = 19, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 209ms, Maximum = 304ms, Average = 267ms
Control-C

karvala · Sep 22, 2006, 15:12:15

Yeah, they're none too impressive here now, either (and l8nc suggests they were even worse earlier):-

Pinging 212.69.58.58 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:24ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:26ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:37ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:42ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:51ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:84ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:81ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:78ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:114ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:85ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:80ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:88ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:89ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:103ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:111ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:94ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:111ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:125ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:166ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:138ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:122ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:116ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:108ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:114ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:93ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:59ms TTL:51
Ping statistics for 212.69.58.58 :
Packets: Sent = 27, Received = 27, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 166ms, Average = 88ms

Rolacka · Sep 22, 2006, 15:24:17

According to my pingplotter , its started at around 1:40 pm peaking over 300 ms sustained for around 30 mins at 1:55 pm & it stayed that way til 2:25 pm approx when it then dropped back down again.

philco · Sep 22, 2006, 16:01:36

Indeed i saw the same here too.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Rolacka · Sep 22, 2006, 16:09:51

Seems clear to me this isnt an exchange problem it clearly is pointing to idnet's setup, your graph looks exactly like the one I just emailed to simon.

karvala · Sep 22, 2006, 16:10:41

Quote from: Rolacka on Sep 22, 2006, 15:24:17
According to my pingplotter , its started at around 1:40 pm peaking over 300 ms sustained for around 30 mins at 1:55 pm & it stayed that way til 2:25 pm approx when it then dropped back down again.

Yes, that's pretty much what my l8nc graph shows as well (except a lower mean value; and the l8nc times are GMT so they show up as an hour earlier, but refer to the same real time).

karvala · Sep 22, 2006, 16:12:29

Quote from: Rolacka on Sep 22, 2006, 16:09:51
Seems clear to me this isnt an exchange problem it clearly is pointing to idnet's setup, your graph looks exactly like the one I just emailed to simon.

Oh, we know it's not an exchange problem; in fact, it seems almost certain to me that it's actually a BT Colossus network routing problem. Unfortunately, that network is shrouded in such secrecy, and BTW have such a culture of denial, that it will be nigh on impossible to convince them to even take a look it at.

EDIT: While I'm here:-

Pinging 212.69.58.58 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:74ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:79ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:119ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:118ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:109ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:90ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:133ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:123ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:120ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:131ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:138ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:108ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:107ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:103ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:100ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:96ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:63ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:73ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:73ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:54ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:31ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:35ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:48ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:54ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:33ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:34ms TTL:51
Reply from 212.69.58.58 bytes:32 Time:25ms TTL:51
Ping statistics for 212.69.58.58 :
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 138ms, Average = 78ms

Rolacka · Sep 22, 2006, 16:56:39

Well if thats the case I am now back in the same situation as I was in with Nildram for 3 months as far as trying to play wow, this isp can keep me connected but at the cost of a +400 ms ping during the day while playing, wonderful

maxping · Sep 22, 2006, 16:59:47

Quote from: equk on Sep 22, 2006, 12:42:34
has been 130ms for the last 4hours here

Have you tried turning the router off for 30 mins then trying again?

Rolacka · Sep 22, 2006, 17:01:13

Never mind mis read that last one & no it serves no purpose unless you have a stale session, my pings are back to normal for daytime now