Horrendous ping times

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Stu Fleming, Jan 29, 2007.

  1. Stu Fleming

    Stu Fleming Guest

    ADSL 256Kbps Actrix 29/01/2007 11pm
    Ugly national and international ping times and packet loss.

    |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    | WinMTR statistics
    |
    | Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best |
    Avrg | Wrst | Last |
    |------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
    | 192.168.0.1 - 5 | 61 | 58 | 62 |
    145 | 1750 | 63 |
    | wn-cisco-r5-lo-5.connections.net.nz - 10 | 61 | 55 | 62 |
    193 | 1609 | 63 |
    | wn-sum-1-wnlan7.connections.net.nz - 4 | 61 | 59 | 62 |
    325 | 2078 | 63 |
    | wn-cisco-r10-fa-0-0.connections.net.nz - 9 | 61 | 56 | 62 |
    406 | 2000 | 79 |
    | p1-telstra-int-pri.connections.net.nz - 5 | 61 | 58 | 62 |
    424 | 1985 | 78 |
    | ge-0-2-0-1.xcore1.acld.telstraclear.net - 0 | 61 | 61 | 78 |
    416 | 2063 | 93 |
    |ge0-2-0-1024.icore2.pnr.telstraclear.net - 2 | 61 | 60 | 78 |
    280 | 1984 | 78 |
    | i-4-0.wil-core02.net.reach.com - 5 | 61 | 58 | 203 |
    421 | 2047 | 375 |
    | i-3-1.wil03.net.reach.com - 9 | 61 | 56 | 203 |
    323 | 2171 | 297 |
    | Google.peer.wil03.net.reach.com - 7 | 61 | 57 | 203 |
    427 | 2531 | 235 |
    | 72.14.238.130 - 4 | 60 | 58 | 218 |
    513 | 2453 | 234 |
    | 72.14.233.129 - 4 | 60 | 58 | 218 |
    493 | 2437 | 250 |
    | 66.249.94.226 - 4 | 60 | 58 | 218 |
    470 | 2359 | 234 |
    | mc-in-f99.google.com - 4 | 60 | 58 | 218 |
    428 | 2281 | 234 |
    |________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
    WinMTR - 0.8. Copyleft @2000-2002 Vasile Laurentiu Stanimir (
    )
    Stu Fleming, Jan 29, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Stu Fleming wrote:
    > ADSL 256Kbps Actrix 29/01/2007 11pm
    > Ugly national and international ping times and packet loss.
    >
    > |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    > | WinMTR statistics |
    > | Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
    > |------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
    > | 192.168.0.1 - 5 | 61 | 58 | 62 | 145 | 1750 | 63 |
    > | wn-cisco-r5-lo-5.connections.net.nz - 10 | 61 | 55 | 62 | 193 | 1609 | 63 |
    > | wn-sum-1-wnlan7.connections.net.nz - 4 | 61 | 59 | 62 | 325 | 2078 | 63 |
    > | wn-cisco-r10-fa-0-0.connections.net.nz - 9 | 61 | 56 | 62 | 406 | 2000 | 79 |
    > | p1-telstra-int-pri.connections.net.nz - 5 | 61 | 58 | 62 | 424 | 1985 | 78 |
    > | ge-0-2-0-1.xcore1.acld.telstraclear.net - 0 | 61 | 61 | 78 | 416 | 2063 | 93 |
    > |ge0-2-0-1024.icore2.pnr.telstraclear.net - 2 | 61 | 60 | 78 | 280 | 1984 | 78 |
    > | i-4-0.wil-core02.net.reach.com - 5 | 61 | 58 | 203 | 421 | 2047 | 375 |
    > | i-3-1.wil03.net.reach.com - 9 | 61 | 56 | 203 | 323 | 2171 | 297 |
    > | Google.peer.wil03.net.reach.com - 7 | 61 | 57 | 203 | 427 | 2531 | 235 |
    > | 72.14.238.130 - 4 | 60 | 58 | 218 | 513 | 2453 | 234 |
    > | 72.14.233.129 - 4 | 60 | 58 | 218 | 493 | 2437 | 250 |
    > | 66.249.94.226 - 4 | 60 | 58 | 218 | 470 | 2359 | 234 |
    > | mc-in-f99.google.com - 4 | 60 | 58 | 218 | 428 | 2281 | 234 |
    > |________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
    > WinMTR - 0.8. Copyleft @2000-2002 Vasile Laurentiu Stanimir ( )


    As the bad times affect the first hop and all subsequent, I'd guess that you
    had saturated your available download speed or your router or the first hop was
    getting a hammering. Helpdesk folks will often advise power cycling your
    modem/router in such cases with good reason.

    All looks ok here through paradise:
    > kawakawa:~# mtr --report --report-cycles=100 mc-in-f99.google.com
    > HOST: kawakawa Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
    > 1. fe7-4-515-16.bertha.paradise 0.0% 100 10.9 13.5 9.7 29.3 3.3
    > 2. 218.101.61.50 0.0% 100 10.2 15.7 9.7 68.0 8.1
    > 3. 218.101.61.45 0.0% 100 19.5 22.8 18.8 52.6 4.7
    > 4. ge-0-2-0-1.xcore1.acld.telst 0.0% 100 21.6 23.2 18.7 43.6 5.0
    > 5. ge0-2-0-1024.icore2.pnr.tels 0.0% 100 20.1 23.5 18.7 39.6 4.2
    > 6. i-4-0.wil-core02.net.reach.c 0.0% 100 158.0 158.3 154.7 173.4 3.0
    > 7. i-3-1.wil03.net.reach.com 0.0% 100 155.8 169.7 155.1 326.9 33.8
    > 8. Google.peer.wil03.net.reach. 0.0% 100 160.2 159.4 154.8 179.3 4.2
    > 9. 216.239.43.144 0.0% 100 168.4 172.1 166.3 193.7 5.2
    > 10. 72.14.236.11 0.0% 100 169.3 171.4 166.8 194.0 4.5
    > 11. 216.239.49.54 0.0% 100 172.1 172.3 167.9 191.8 4.4
    > 12. 72.14.233.129 1.0% 100 175.1 172.2 167.5 192.8 4.7
    > 13. mc-in-f99.google.com 2.0% 100 167.6 173.0 167.6 191.1 4.8
    > kawakawa:~#
    Mark Robinson, Jan 29, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Stu Fleming

    Tony Guest

    Stu Fleming wrote:
    > ADSL 256Kbps Actrix 29/01/2007 11pm
    > Ugly national and international ping times and packet loss.
    >
    > |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    >
    > | WinMTR statistics
    > |
    > | Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best |
    > Avrg | Wrst | Last |
    > |------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
    >
    > | 192.168.0.1 - 5 | 61 | 58 | 62 |
    > 145 | 1750 | 63 |
    >


    This is reporting packet loss on your first (your router) hop, I would
    suggest you look at your own network first.
    Tony, Jan 29, 2007
    #3
  4. Stu Fleming

    Enkidu Guest

    Stu Fleming wrote:
    > ADSL 256Kbps Actrix 29/01/2007 11pm
    > Ugly national and international ping times and packet loss.
    >
    > |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    >
    > | WinMTR statistics
    > |
    > | Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best |
    > Avrg | Wrst | Last |
    > |------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
    >
    > | 192.168.0.1 - 5 | 61 | 58 | 62 |
    > 145 | 1750 | 63 |


    Looks like you have a problem at the first hop at least. Some packets at
    least took nearly two seconds to your router (192.168.0.1).

    If you allow for that they don't look too bad.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
    Enkidu, Jan 29, 2007
    #4
  5. Stu Fleming

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Tony wrote:
    > Stu Fleming wrote:
    > > ADSL 256Kbps Actrix 29/01/2007 11pm
    > > Ugly national and international ping times and packet loss.
    > >
    > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

    > >
    > > > WinMTR statistics

    > > |
    > > > Host - % | Sent | Recv |
    > > > Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
    > > > ------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|

    > >
    > > > 192.168.0.1 - 5 | 61 | 58 | 62 |

    > > 145 | 1750 | 63 |
    > >

    >
    > This is reporting packet loss on your first (your router) hop, I would
    > suggest you look at your own network first.


    Indeed. After being with several ISPs I can say with a degree of experience
    that, generally, I find ping times via Actrix to be very good by NZ
    standards.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Jan 29, 2007
    #5
  6. Stu Fleming

    Stu Fleming Guest

    Enkidu wrote:

    > Looks like you have a problem at the first hop at least. Some packets at
    > least took nearly two seconds to your router (192.168.0.1).


    That's the odd thing. Since switching to Actrix, the 65ms latency shows
    up on the first hop, not the second. That's always been really odd.
    Looks like hardware issue with the router since traffic isn't
    significantly high, nor are there any LAN issues. Just very odd.
    Stu Fleming, Jan 30, 2007
    #6
  7. Stu Fleming

    Miguel Guest

    On Jan 30, 1:03 pm, Stu Fleming <> wrote:
    > Enkidu wrote:
    > > Looks like you have a problem at the first hop at least. Some packets at
    > > least took nearly two seconds to your router (192.168.0.1).That's the odd thing. Since switching to Actrix, the 65ms latency shows

    > up on the first hop, not the second. That's always been really odd.
    > Looks like hardware issue with the router since traffic isn't
    > significantly high, nor are there any LAN issues. Just very odd.


    Not sure if it's related but I'm having an extremely slow day with
    Actrix Go Large. I've only just reached a gig of traffic (2:00pm-ish)
    which I'd normally do by 8:00am-ish.

    Browsing and newsgroups are really really slow today. Hope it's just a
    temporary thing.

    Regards
    Miguel
    Miguel, Jan 30, 2007
    #7
  8. Stu Fleming

    none Guest

    Miguel wrote:
    > Not sure if it's related but I'm having an extremely slow day with
    > Actrix Go Large. I've only just reached a gig of traffic (2:00pm-ish)
    > which I'd normally do by 8:00am-ish.
    >
    > Browsing and newsgroups are really really slow today. Hope it's just a
    > temporary thing.


    Unlikely given Go Large is a Telecom product, using Telecoms bandwidth,
    via Telecoms network.

    Less likely given the fact that this guys problems start before his
    connection even leaves the house.
    none, Jan 30, 2007
    #8
  9. Stu Fleming wrote:
    > ADSL 256Kbps Actrix 29/01/2007 11pm
    > Ugly national and international ping times and packet loss.
    >
    > |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    > | WinMTR statistics |
    > | Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
    > |------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
    > | 192.168.0.1 - 5 | 61 | 58 | 62 | 145 | 1750 | 63 |
    > | wn-cisco-r5-lo-5.connections.net.nz - 10 | 61 | 55 | 62 | 193 | 1609 | 63 |
    > | wn-sum-1-wnlan7.connections.net.nz - 4 | 61 | 59 | 62 | 325 | 2078 | 63 |
    > | wn-cisco-r10-fa-0-0.connections.net.nz - 9 | 61 | 56 | 62 | 406 | 2000 | 79 |
    > | p1-telstra-int-pri.connections.net.nz - 5 | 61 | 58 | 62 | 424 | 1985 | 78 |
    > | ge-0-2-0-1.xcore1.acld.telstraclear.net - 0 | 61 | 61 | 78 | 416 | 2063 | 93 |
    > |ge0-2-0-1024.icore2.pnr.telstraclear.net - 2 | 61 | 60 | 78 | 280 | 1984 | 78 |
    > | i-4-0.wil-core02.net.reach.com - 5 | 61 | 58 | 203 | 421 | 2047 | 375 |
    > | i-3-1.wil03.net.reach.com - 9 | 61 | 56 | 203 | 323 | 2171 | 297 |
    > | Google.peer.wil03.net.reach.com - 7 | 61 | 57 | 203 | 427 | 2531 | 235 |
    > | 72.14.238.130 - 4 | 60 | 58 | 218 | 513 | 2453 | 234 |
    > | 72.14.233.129 - 4 | 60 | 58 | 218 | 493 | 2437 | 250 |
    > | 66.249.94.226 - 4 | 60 | 58 | 218 | 470 | 2359 | 234 |
    > | mc-in-f99.google.com - 4 | 60 | 58 | 218 | 428 | 2281 | 234 |
    > |________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|



    try these:
    > kawakawa:~# mtr --report --report-cycles=100 www.google.com
    > HOST: kawakawa Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
    > 1. fe7-4-515-16.bertha.paradise 0.0% 100 12.3 14.1 10.0 35.2 4.0
    > 2. 218.101.61.50 0.0% 100 13.5 14.6 9.5 55.0 7.3
    > 3. 218.101.61.45 0.0% 100 22.9 21.0 18.5 29.2 2.2
    > 4. ge-0-2-0-1.xcore1.acld.telst 2.0% 100 20.3 21.5 18.5 44.3 3.2
    > 5. ge0-0-0.nzsx-core2.akl.telst 0.0% 100 34.6 43.6 27.5 219.9 31.9
    > 6. 202.84.219.109 9.0% 100 3796. 3836. 3474. 4187. 148.2
    > 7. i-1-2.wil03.net.reach.com 4.0% 100 3788. 3844. 3485. 4195. 142.2
    > 8. Google.peer.wil03.net.reach. 12.0% 100 3784. 3831. 3467. 4215. 143.5
    > 9. 216.239.43.144 7.0% 100 3811. 3845. 3472. 4196. 146.6
    > 10. 66.249.94.227 45.0% 100 14865 8179. 3577. 15598 5149.3
    > 11. 216.239.49.54 28.0% 100 3824. 8116. 3478. 15507 5082.5
    > 12. 216.239.49.66 38.0% 100 14855 8813. 3482. 15349 5186.8
    > 13. 216.239.49.54 40.6% 96 14881 12185 3591. 15663 4174.0
    > 14. mc-in-f104.google.com 58.3% 96 14879 14233 13238 15526 720.5
    > kawakawa:~#
    Mark Robinson, Jan 30, 2007
    #9
  10. Stu Fleming

    Stu Fleming Guest

    Mark Robinson wrote:
    > try these:
    >> kawakawa:~# mtr --report --report-cycles=100 www.google.com
    >> HOST: kawakawa Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
    >> 1. fe7-4-515-16.bertha.paradise 0.0% 100 12.3 14.1 10.0 35.2 4.0
    >> 2. 218.101.61.50 0.0% 100 13.5 14.6 9.5 55.0 7.3
    >> 3. 218.101.61.45 0.0% 100 22.9 21.0 18.5 29.2 2.2
    >> 4. ge-0-2-0-1.xcore1.acld.telst 2.0% 100 20.3 21.5 18.5 44.3 3.2
    >> 5. ge0-0-0.nzsx-core2.akl.telst 0.0% 100 34.6 43.6 27.5 219.9 31.9
    >> 6. 202.84.219.109 9.0% 100 3796. 3836. 3474. 4187. 148.2


    What's that ? Experiment to slow down speed of light?
    Stu Fleming, Jan 30, 2007
    #10
  11. Stu Fleming

    Enkidu Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Tony wrote:
    >> Stu Fleming wrote:
    >>> ADSL 256Kbps Actrix 29/01/2007 11pm
    >>> Ugly national and international ping times and packet loss.
    >>>
    >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    >>>> WinMTR statistics
    >>> |
    >>>> Host - % | Sent | Recv |
    >>>> Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
    >>>> ------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
    >>>> 192.168.0.1 - 5 | 61 | 58 | 62 |
    >>> 145 | 1750 | 63 |
    >>>

    >> This is reporting packet loss on your first (your router) hop, I would
    >> suggest you look at your own network first.

    >
    > Indeed. After being with several ISPs I can say with a degree of experience
    > that, generally, I find ping times via Actrix to be very good by NZ
    > standards.
    >

    It's not even reaching Actrix. At least if, as I presume, that the IP
    address (192.168.0.1) is the address of *his* router.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
    Enkidu, Jan 30, 2007
    #11
  12. Stu Fleming

    Enkidu Guest

    Stu Fleming wrote:
    >
    > Mark Robinson wrote:
    >> try these:
    >>> kawakawa:~# mtr --report --report-cycles=100 www.google.com
    >>> HOST: kawakawa Loss% Snt Last Avg Best
    >>> Wrst StDev
    >>> 1. fe7-4-515-16.bertha.paradise 0.0% 100 12.3 14.1 10.0
    >>> 35.2 4.0
    >>> 2. 218.101.61.50 0.0% 100 13.5 14.6 9.5
    >>> 55.0 7.3
    >>> 3. 218.101.61.45 0.0% 100 22.9 21.0 18.5
    >>> 29.2 2.2
    >>> 4. ge-0-2-0-1.xcore1.acld.telst 2.0% 100 20.3 21.5 18.5
    >>> 44.3 3.2
    >>> 5. ge0-0-0.nzsx-core2.akl.telst 0.0% 100 34.6 43.6 27.5
    >>> 219.9 31.9
    >>> 6. 202.84.219.109 9.0% 100 3796. 3836. 3474.
    >>> 4187. 148.2

    >
    > What's that ? Experiment to slow down speed of light?
    >


    ge0-0-0.nzsx-core2.akl.telst... is probably the last Telstra-Clear
    router in NZ. 202.84.219.109 is probably the first overseas router,
    probably also TC's. I'd say that one or the other is in trouble.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
    Enkidu, Jan 30, 2007
    #12
  13. Enkidu wrote:
    > Stu Fleming wrote:
    >>
    >> Mark Robinson wrote:
    >>> try these:
    >>>> kawakawa:~# mtr --report --report-cycles=100 www.google.com
    >>>> HOST: kawakawa Loss% Snt Last Avg Best
    >>>> Wrst StDev
    >>>> 1. fe7-4-515-16.bertha.paradise 0.0% 100 12.3 14.1 10.0
    >>>> 35.2 4.0
    >>>> 2. 218.101.61.50 0.0% 100 13.5 14.6 9.5
    >>>> 55.0 7.3
    >>>> 3. 218.101.61.45 0.0% 100 22.9 21.0 18.5
    >>>> 29.2 2.2
    >>>> 4. ge-0-2-0-1.xcore1.acld.telst 2.0% 100 20.3 21.5 18.5
    >>>> 44.3 3.2
    >>>> 5. ge0-0-0.nzsx-core2.akl.telst 0.0% 100 34.6 43.6 27.5
    >>>> 219.9 31.9
    >>>> 6. 202.84.219.109 9.0% 100 3796. 3836. 3474.
    >>>> 4187. 148.2

    >>
    >> What's that ? Experiment to slow down speed of light?
    >>

    >
    > ge0-0-0.nzsx-core2.akl.telst... is probably the last Telstra-Clear
    > router in NZ. 202.84.219.109 is probably the first overseas router,
    > probably also TC's. I'd say that one or the other is in trouble.


    Referring to the thread "Paradise.net.nz, some intl down?":
    > Nik Coughlin wrote:
    >> > Paradise.net.nz, can't get Google, some other international sites
    >> > very slow to load or don't load at all. Anyone else having problems?
    >> > 30/01/2007 15:00

    >
    > Ah, they've just updated their website:
    > paradise.net : International Web Browsing
    > International Browsing
    > Service Disruption Start: 30 January 2007, 2:00 PM
    > Estimated Service Disruption End: 30 January 2007, 4:15 PM
    > Last Updated: 30 January 2007, 2:58 PM
    > Area Affected: Nationwide
    > Customer Impact:Customers may experience degraded international browsing
    > issues today. Technicians are aware and working to resolve this issue.
    > This issue is effecting all ISP's.
    > This is the same issue as this morning and has reoccurred.


    and
    > Nik Coughlin wrote:
    > Yes, there have two issues today caused by a sick Cisco GSR router in Hong Kong.


    and whois 202.84.219.109:
    > inetnum: 202.84.128.0 - 202.84.255.255
    > netname: REACH-HK
    > role: Network Operation Center of Reach Networks HK Ltd
    > address: Wanchai, Hong Kong
    Mark Robinson, Jan 30, 2007
    #13
  14. Stu Fleming

    jasen Guest

    On 2007-01-29, Stu Fleming <> wrote:
    > ADSL 256Kbps Actrix 29/01/2007 11pm
    > Ugly national and international ping times and packet loss.


    >|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    >| WinMTR statistics |
    >| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
    >|-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
    >| 192.168.0.1 - 5 | 61 | 58 | 62 | 145 | 1750 | 63 |


    yes, horrendous. sort this one out first,


    --

    Bye.
    Jasen
    jasen, Jan 30, 2007
    #14
  15. Stu Fleming

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Enkidu wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    > > Tony wrote:
    > > > Stu Fleming wrote:
    > > > > ADSL 256Kbps Actrix 29/01/2007 11pm
    > > > > Ugly national and international ping times and packet loss.
    > > > >
    > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    > > > > > WinMTR statistics
    > > > > |
    > > > > > Host - % | Sent | Recv |
    > > > > > Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
    > > > > > ------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
    > > > > > 192.168.0.1 - 5 | 61 | 58
    > > > > > | 62 |
    > > > > 145 | 1750 | 63 |
    > > > >
    > > > This is reporting packet loss on your first (your router) hop, I
    > > > would suggest you look at your own network first.

    > >
    > > Indeed. After being with several ISPs I can say with a degree of
    > > experience that, generally, I find ping times via Actrix to be very
    > > good by NZ standards.
    > >

    > It's not even reaching Actrix. At least if, as I presume, that the IP
    > address (192.168.0.1) is the address of *his* router.


    Hi Cliff,

    Yeah, I've seen that since I first wrote that post. Perhaps he needs to
    overclock his router? Use at least cat 5 instead of number 8 wire?

    Cheers,

    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Jan 30, 2007
    #15
  16. Stu Fleming

    Stu Fleming Guest

    Enkidu wrote:

    > It's not even reaching Actrix. At least if, as I presume, that the IP
    > address (192.168.0.1) is the address of *his* router.


    For some reason, the first hop count looks like it *is* Actrix. There
    is no hardware issue on the LAN; the first hop latency has been the ADSL
    latency since switching to Actrix. i.e if I ping the router directly, I
    get the sub 1ms latency that I expect. When I mtr through that router,
    I get 65ms latency for the first hop. The packet loss and ping times
    cleared up on their own sometime yesterday afternoon.
    Stu Fleming, Jan 30, 2007
    #16
  17. Stu Fleming

    Stu Fleming Guest

    jasen wrote:
    > On 2007-01-29, Stu Fleming <> wrote:
    >> ADSL 256Kbps Actrix 29/01/2007 11pm
    >> Ugly national and international ping times and packet loss.

    >
    >> |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    >> | WinMTR statistics |
    >> | Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
    >> |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
    >> | 192.168.0.1 - 5 | 61 | 58 | 62 | 145 | 1750 | 63 |

    >
    > yes, horrendous. sort this one out first,
    >
    >


    This is what I've been trying to explain. Look:
    |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    | WinMTR statistics
    |
    | Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best |
    Avrg | Wrst | Last |
    |------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
    | 192.168.0.1 - 0 | 103 | 103 | 0 |
    0 | 0 | 0 |
    |________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
    WinMTR - 0.8. Copyleft @2000-2002 Vasile Laurentiu Stanimir (
    )

    Directly after:
    |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    | WinMTR statistics
    |
    | Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best |
    Avrg | Wrst | Last |
    |------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
    | 192.168.0.1 - 4 | 33 | 32 | 62 |
    67 | 79 | 63 |
    | wn-cisco-r5-lo-5.connections.net.nz - 0 | 32 | 32 | 62 |
    66 | 79 | 62 |
    | wn-sum-1-wnlan7.connections.net.nz - 0 | 32 | 32 | 62 |
    70 | 109 | 63 |
    | wn-cisco-r9-fa-0-0.connections.net.nz - 0 | 32 | 32 | 62 |
    72 | 94 | 62 |
    | p1-telstra-int-pri.connections.net.nz - 0 | 32 | 32 | 78 |
    82 | 94 | 78 |
    | ge-0-2-0-1.xcore1.acld.telstraclear.net - 0 | 32 | 32 | 78 |
    84 | 125 | 94 |
    |ge0-2-0-1024.icore2.pnr.telstraclear.net - 0 | 32 | 32 | 78 |
    86 | 187 | 94 |
    | i-4-1.wil-core02.net.reach.com - 4 | 32 | 31 | 203 |
    218 | 313 | 203 |
    | i-3-1.wil03.net.reach.com - 4 | 32 | 31 | 203 |
    226 | 313 | 235 |
    | Google.peer.wil03.net.reach.com - 4 | 32 | 31 | 203 |
    219 | 282 | 219 |
    | 72.14.238.130 - 4 | 32 | 31 | 218 |
    232 | 343 | 234 |
    | 72.14.233.129 - 4 | 32 | 31 | 218 |
    232 | 328 | 219 |
    | 72.14.233.131 - 7 | 32 | 30 | 219 |
    236 | 312 | 219 |
    | 66.102.7.104 - 4 | 32 | 31 | 218 |
    238 | 360 | 219 |
    |________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
    WinMTR - 0.8. Copyleft @2000-2002 Vasile Laurentiu Stanimir (
    )

    Note the reported latency on the first hop - the same physical device as
    the first time. Packet loss and latency on those Internet traces are
    NOT due to my router - they are being reported as the first hop ADSL for
    some reason.

    The issues that I was seeing were more than likely due to the problem
    with the reach.net router (see other threads).
    Stu Fleming, Jan 30, 2007
    #17
  18. Stu Fleming

    none Guest

    Stu Fleming wrote:
    > Note the reported latency on the first hop - the same physical device as
    > the first time. Packet loss and latency on those Internet traces are
    > NOT due to my router - they are being reported as the first hop ADSL for
    > some reason.


    Of course there's going to be latency on the first hop.

    In between your ADSL modem and your ISP there are a number of Telecom
    devices, and their typically bad ATM routing (think customer with DSL in
    Wgtn, terminates on an Akl RAN, and is then shuttled to a Telecom ATM in
    Christchurch before reaching the ISP - this is accurate - it's how my
    connection terminates).

    It isn't just magic fairy internet that gives you a $adslspeed pipe from
    your door to your ISP with nothing in the middle. There's also a lot of
    contention ratio in the middle there.

    All the devices between you and your ISP are hidden by a Layer 2 tunnel,
    so the first bit of latency is impossible to pin down without getting
    Telecom engineers involved (lol good luck) and could be due to any one
    of Telecoms devices in the mix.

    The second latency jump is due to the fact you're in NZ, and there's an
    awful lot of fibre to get to the US of A across, esp. with the fact that
    all is still not 100% post Taiwan earthquake.

    Packet loss is not a good indicator. Busy devices will drop non critical
    packets like IGMP etc, it's the way of the internet - particularly with
    every man and his goat running mtr, ping and tracert all the time to
    give them something to grizzle about their connections with.

    > The issues that I was seeing were more than likely due to the problem
    > with the reach.net router (see other threads).


    Completely irrelevant, the Reach problem didn't start until 0930
    yesterday, well after you'd reported this "issue".
    none, Jan 30, 2007
    #18
  19. Stu Fleming

    Stu Fleming Guest

    none wrote:

    > Of course there's going to be latency on the first hop.


    Not between my PC and the inside interface of the router there isn't.

    > All the devices between you and your ISP are hidden by a Layer 2 tunnel,
    > so the first bit of latency is impossible to pin down without getting
    > Telecom engineers involved (lol good luck) and could be due to any one
    > of Telecoms devices in the mix.


    Exactly, but it should show up (as it used to) as a latency between hop
    1 (my router) and the Actrix POP, not at hop 1 itself.
    Stu Fleming, Jan 31, 2007
    #19
  20. Stu Fleming

    Enkidu Guest

    Stu Fleming wrote:
    > none wrote:
    >
    >> Of course there's going to be latency on the first hop.

    >
    > Not between my PC and the inside interface of the router there isn't.
    >
    >> All the devices between you and your ISP are hidden by a Layer 2 tunnel,
    >> so the first bit of latency is impossible to pin down without getting
    >> Telecom engineers involved (lol good luck) and could be due to any one
    >> of Telecoms devices in the mix.

    >
    > Exactly, but it should show up (as it used to) as a latency between hop
    > 1 (my router) and the Actrix POP, not at hop 1 itself.
    >

    Well, I don't believe that one with all zeros. Even connected directly
    to my firewall I get between 1 and 2 all the time.

    One possibility is that someone is hammering the router from the outside
    and filling up the buffers, but whether or not that is true depends on a
    lot of things.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
    Enkidu, Jan 31, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?a3VqdQ==?=

    Weird ping times on wireless network

    =?Utf-8?B?a3VqdQ==?=, Aug 7, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,918
    indianajones
    Sep 24, 2006
  2. g
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    5,354
    Walter Roberson
    Nov 12, 2003
  3. Moo

    Boot Times and Recycle Times

    Moo, Nov 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    357
    Bob Harrington
    Nov 20, 2004
  4. Jules W
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    336
    Briscobar
    Aug 30, 2005
  5. Skybuck Flying

    Boot times vs Shutdown times

    Skybuck Flying, Sep 10, 2011, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,369
    Skybuck Flying
    Sep 26, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page