Unacceptable gaming ping from IHUG

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Nova, May 5, 2007.

  1. Nova

    Nova Guest

    I've been playing World of Warcraft through IHUG for a while now and
    recently switched plans to their broadband 3 plan. Since doing so my ping
    in game has skyrocketed, averaging 400ms, spiking to over 1500ms whenever
    there is any action happening on screen.

    I initially put this down to a problem close to the server, or latency in a
    router in the US. However the problem continued and led me to experiment to
    determine the cause.

    I downloaded software that tunnels my WoW traffic through HTTP, in an
    attempt to see if it was QoS traffic shaping that was slowing my packets
    down. Turns out I was right on the money -- immediately my ping shrank to
    250ms and held there, rock solid. Obviously, HTTP traffic is being
    prioritised and game traffic is being shaped.

    I refuse to continue using this tunneling software (which has a monthly fee)
    in order to receive the level of service from my internet provider that I
    should be receiving as a matter of course. I pay my monthly subscription
    fee and I should be receiving the appropriate level of service, not be
    treated like a second class citizen for trying to play a game on the
    internet.

    If this doesn't change -- and change FAST -- I'm going to a different ISP.
    Anyone got any recommendations?
     
    Nova, May 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nova

    Enkidu Guest

    Nova wrote:
    >
    > If this doesn't change -- and change FAST -- I'm going to a different ISP.
    > Anyone got any recommendations?
    >

    Yes. Give up playing stupid games and get a life.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, May 5, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nova

    Nova Guest

    On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:14:09 +1200, Enkidu <>
    wrote:

    >Nova wrote:
    >>
    >> If this doesn't change -- and change FAST -- I'm going to a different ISP.
    >> Anyone got any recommendations?
    > >

    >Yes. Give up playing stupid games and get a life.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >
    >Cliff


    Very helpful.

    Could we please restrict this thread to non-internet-warrior types? If I
    wanted an argument with an idiot I'd post on the internet --- oh right, I
    see your point.
     
    Nova, May 5, 2007
    #3
  4. Nova

    Enkidu Guest

    Nova wrote:
    > On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:14:09 +1200, Enkidu <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Nova wrote:
    >>> If this doesn't change -- and change FAST -- I'm going to a different ISP.
    >>> Anyone got any recommendations?
    >>>

    >> Yes. Give up playing stupid games and get a life.

    >
    > Very helpful.
    >
    > Could we please restrict this thread to non-internet-warrior types? If I
    > wanted an argument with an idiot I'd post on the internet --- oh right, I
    > see your point.
    >

    Playing internet games is as pointless as fishing.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

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

    XPD Guest

    "Nova" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've been playing World of Warcraft through IHUG for a while now and
    > recently switched plans to their broadband 3 plan. Since doing so my ping
    > in game has skyrocketed, averaging 400ms, spiking to over 1500ms whenever
    > there is any action happening on screen.



    Yay So Im not the only one!!!!!!!!!

    Ive only just joined IHUG this week on the same plan and yeah... pings go
    nuts :(
     
    XPD, May 5, 2007
    #5
  6. Nova

    XPD Guest

    "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >

    > Playing internet games is as pointless as fishing.


    So is replying with crap.
    ;)
     
    XPD, May 5, 2007
    #6
  7. Nova

    Chris Hope Guest

    Nova wrote:

    > I've been playing World of Warcraft through IHUG for a while now and
    > recently switched plans to their broadband 3 plan. Since doing so my
    > ping in game has skyrocketed, averaging 400ms, spiking to over 1500ms
    > whenever there is any action happening on screen.
    >
    > I initially put this down to a problem close to the server, or latency
    > in a
    > router in the US. However the problem continued and led me to
    > experiment to determine the cause.
    >
    > I downloaded software that tunnels my WoW traffic through HTTP, in an
    > attempt to see if it was QoS traffic shaping that was slowing my
    > packets
    > down. Turns out I was right on the money -- immediately my ping
    > shrank to
    > 250ms and held there, rock solid. Obviously, HTTP traffic is being
    > prioritised and game traffic is being shaped.
    >
    > I refuse to continue using this tunneling software (which has a
    > monthly fee) in order to receive the level of service from my internet
    > provider that I
    > should be receiving as a matter of course. I pay my monthly
    > subscription fee and I should be receiving the appropriate level of
    > service, not be treated like a second class citizen for trying to play
    > a game on the internet.
    >
    > If this doesn't change -- and change FAST -- I'm going to a different
    > ISP. Anyone got any recommendations?


    I'm using Orcon and haven't changed plans or anything. I've had
    acceptable pings playing WoW but for some reason last night it dropped
    to between 600ms and 1200ms. Whether this is something they were doing
    or due to something else I don't know. Not sure if I'll get to play
    again until Monday or Tuesday so won't know if the issue is still there
    until then.

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
     
    Chris Hope, May 5, 2007
    #7
  8. Nova

    Enkidu Guest

    XPD wrote:
    > "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Playing internet games is as pointless as fishing.

    >
    > So is replying with crap.
    >

    No dispute there!

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, May 5, 2007
    #8
  9. Nova

    XPD Guest

    "Nova" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've been playing World of Warcraft through IHUG for a while now and
    > recently switched plans to their broadband 3 plan. Since doing so my ping
    > in game has skyrocketed, averaging 400ms, spiking to over 1500ms whenever
    > there is any action happening on screen.


    I sent IHUG an email with your results.... heres their reply.

    ===========================
    There is no traffic shaping at Ihug that I know of. It is also known that
    Telecom has been prioritising HTTP traffic over other traffic through the
    backhaul. You can do some trace routes also to identify where the latency
    is.

    Kind Regards

    <name>

    Senior Customer Service Representative

    Contact Centre

    Ihug Limited

    ===============================
     
    XPD, May 5, 2007
    #9
  10. Nova

    Cima Guest

    Since I was changed over to TelstraClear's PDQ, my Counter-Strike pings are
    shit. Used to average 65-75, now it's 98-120 with "Connection Problem" errors
    now & then. I had better results on my original 256k plan.
     
    Cima, May 5, 2007
    #10

  11. >
    > ===========================
    > There is no traffic shaping at Ihug that I know of. It is also known that
    > Telecom has been prioritising HTTP traffic over other traffic through the
    > backhaul. You can do some trace routes also to identify where the latency
    > is.
    >

    Telecom Prioritising HTTP traffic over other traffic over backhaul for UBS?
    I wonder where This IHUG helpdesk person got this from? It would be great
    if they could name names, or don't spread rumours which may be false.

    Thanks
     
    Craig Whitmore, May 5, 2007
    #11
  12. Nova

    Tony Guest


    > Telecom Prioritising HTTP traffic over other traffic over backhaul for UBS?
    > I wonder where This IHUG helpdesk person got this from? It would be great
    > if they could name names, or don't spread rumours which may be false.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    >

    What bullshit, all ubs traffic is delivered to the ISP over L2TP
    tunnels, Telecom can't prioritize traffic that is within the tunnel.
     
    Tony, May 5, 2007
    #12
  13. Nova

    XPD Guest

    "Craig Whitmore" <> wrote in message
    news:463ce383$...
    >
    >>
    >> ===========================
    >> There is no traffic shaping at Ihug that I know of. It is also known that
    >> Telecom has been prioritising HTTP traffic over other traffic through the
    >> backhaul. You can do some trace routes also to identify where the latency
    >> is.
    >>

    > Telecom Prioritising HTTP traffic over other traffic over backhaul for
    > UBS?
    > I wonder where This IHUG helpdesk person got this from? It would be great
    > if they could name names, or don't spread rumours which may be false.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    >


    OK Ill admit Im useless when it comes to routing (yes, even tho I worked for
    2 ISP helpdesks hehe) so Ill be blunt and ask... :)
    Where in the network is Telecom sitting that the IHUG pleb thinks the
    problem is ? If it isnt, then Ill just go back them with that and see what
    they say...

    Heres a trace to yahoo.com as an example.... (WoW heads down the same path)

    #1 192.168.1.1 (Unavailable): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=64, 5.5 ms
    #2 203.109.128.167 (lo2.akl-grafton-bba2.ihug.net): TTL Exceeded in Transit,
    ttl=254, 74.8 ms
    #3 203.109.130.110 (gi1-1.akl-grafton-bdr2.ihug.net): TTL Exceeded in
    Transit, ttl=253, 70.0 ms
    #4 203.109.130.50 (gi2-10.akl-grafton-bdr1.ihug.net): TTL Exceeded in
    Transit, ttl=252, 68.3 ms
    #5 202.147.45.73 (ip-static-202-147-45-73.asianetcom.net): TTL Exceeded in
    Transit, ttl=251, 57.7 ms
    #6 202.147.55.226 (ge-1-1-0-0.gw4.akl1.asianetcom.net): TTL Exceeded in
    Transit, ttl=249, 58.8 ms
    #7 202.147.55.158 (po7-3.gw2.sjc1.asianetcom.net): TTL Exceeded in Transit,
    ttl=249, 214.7 ms
    #8 202.147.50.129 (po0-0.gw1.sjc1.asianetcom.net): TTL Exceeded in Transit,
    ttl=246, 218.5 ms
    #9 206.223.116.16 (exchange-cust1.sv1.equinix.net): TTL Exceeded in Transit,
    ttl=248, 210.3 ms
    #10 216.115.107.83 (g-0-0-0-p171.msr2.sp1.yahoo.com): TTL Exceeded in
    Transit, ttl=247, 213.4 ms
    #11 209.131.32.21 (UNKNOWN-209-131-32-21.yahoo.com): TTL Exceeded in
    Transit, ttl=246, 217.1 ms
    #12 209.131.36.158 (f1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com): Echo Reply, ttl=55, 215.4 ms
    Out 12, in 12, loss 0%, times (min/avg/max) 5.5/135.4/218.5
     
    XPD, May 5, 2007
    #13
  14. Nova

    Chris Hope Guest

    Chris Hope wrote:

    > Nova wrote:
    >
    >> I've been playing World of Warcraft through IHUG for a while now and
    >> recently switched plans to their broadband 3 plan. Since doing so my
    >> ping in game has skyrocketed, averaging 400ms, spiking to over 1500ms
    >> whenever there is any action happening on screen.
    >>
    >> I initially put this down to a problem close to the server, or
    >> latency in a
    >> router in the US. However the problem continued and led me to
    >> experiment to determine the cause.
    >>
    >> I downloaded software that tunnels my WoW traffic through HTTP, in an
    >> attempt to see if it was QoS traffic shaping that was slowing my
    >> packets
    >> down. Turns out I was right on the money -- immediately my ping
    >> shrank to
    >> 250ms and held there, rock solid. Obviously, HTTP traffic is being
    >> prioritised and game traffic is being shaped.
    >>
    >> I refuse to continue using this tunneling software (which has a
    >> monthly fee) in order to receive the level of service from my
    >> internet provider that I
    >> should be receiving as a matter of course. I pay my monthly
    >> subscription fee and I should be receiving the appropriate level of
    >> service, not be treated like a second class citizen for trying to
    >> play a game on the internet.
    >>
    >> If this doesn't change -- and change FAST -- I'm going to a different
    >> ISP. Anyone got any recommendations?

    >
    > I'm using Orcon and haven't changed plans or anything. I've had
    > acceptable pings playing WoW but for some reason last night it dropped
    > to between 600ms and 1200ms. Whether this is something they were doing
    > or due to something else I don't know. Not sure if I'll get to play
    > again until Monday or Tuesday so won't know if the issue is still
    > there until then.


    I did end up playing for an hour last night and for me the pings went
    back to a normal level on Orcon.

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
     
    Chris Hope, May 5, 2007
    #14
  15. Nova

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:08:13 +1200, Nova <> wrote:

    >I've been playing World of Warcraft through IHUG for a while now and
    >recently switched plans to their broadband 3 plan. Since doing so my ping
    >in game has skyrocketed, averaging 400ms, spiking to over 1500ms whenever
    >there is any action happening on screen.


    Does a lower ping on WoW help you walk to the next boar faster? :)
     
    Craig Shore, May 6, 2007
    #15
  16. Nova

    XPD Guest

    "Craig Shore" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:08:13 +1200, Nova <> wrote:
    >
    >>I've been playing World of Warcraft through IHUG for a while now and
    >>recently switched plans to their broadband 3 plan. Since doing so my ping
    >>in game has skyrocketed, averaging 400ms, spiking to over 1500ms whenever
    >>there is any action happening on screen.

    >
    > Does a lower ping on WoW help you walk to the next boar faster? :)


    Hell yes :p
    LOL

    It is bad tho... soon as a battle occurs, the ping goes to absolute shite -
    Ive hardly touched WoW this weekend because even just walking around an
    empty area the pings are at 800ms at a minimum.

    Ive only been with IHUG for not even a week yet, and Im already eyeing up
    another ISP........
     
    XPD, May 6, 2007
    #16
  17. Nova

    XPD Guest

    "XPD" <> wrote in message
    news:f1it6p$p28$...
    > OK Ill admit Im useless when it comes to routing (yes, even tho I worked
    > for 2 ISP helpdesks hehe) so Ill be blunt and ask... :)
    > Where in the network is Telecom sitting that the IHUG pleb thinks the
    > problem is ? If it isnt, then Ill just go back them with that and see what
    > they say...
    >
    > Heres a trace to yahoo.com as an example.... (WoW heads down the same
    > path)


    No bites yet ?
    ...... when tracing to WoW or any overseas sites, the path appears to be the
    same until hop7/8 where the ping increases.....
    So probably an issue at Asianet but IHUG could at least look into it...
     
    XPD, May 6, 2007
    #17
  18. Nova

    EMB Guest

    XPD wrote:

    > No bites yet ?
    > ..... when tracing to WoW or any overseas sites, the path appears to be the
    > same until hop7/8 where the ping increases.....
    > So probably an issue at Asianet but IHUG could at least look into it...


    #6 202.147.55.226 (ge-1-1-0-0.gw4.akl1.asianetcom.net): TTL Exceeded in
    Transit, ttl=249, 58.8 ms

    gw4.akl1 implies this is an Auckland based router replying to the ping -
    58ms isn't a bad response.


    #7 202.147.55.158 (po7-3.gw2.sjc1.asianetcom.net): TTL Exceeded in
    Transit, ttl=249, 214.7 ms

    gw2.sjc1 implies this is a San Jose, California based router replying.
    How, pray tell, do you expect latency not to increase when you've added
    about 20,000km to the round trip?
     
    EMB, May 6, 2007
    #18
  19. Nova

    XPD Guest

    "EMB" <> wrote in message news:f1k0gm$8nb$...
    > XPD wrote:
    > gw2.sjc1 implies this is a San Jose, California based router replying.
    > How, pray tell, do you expect latency not to increase when you've added
    > about 20,000km to the round trip?


    Fair enough comment.

    Still like to hear from IHUG why gaming servers are so laggy/slow and other
    ISPs are not having any issues.
    Either a routing issue somewhere, or they are traffic shaping.
     
    XPD, May 6, 2007
    #19
  20. XPD wrote:
    > "EMB" <> wrote in message news:f1k0gm$8nb$...
    >> XPD wrote:
    >> gw2.sjc1 implies this is a San Jose, California based router replying.
    >> How, pray tell, do you expect latency not to increase when you've added
    >> about 20,000km to the round trip?

    >
    > Fair enough comment.
    >
    > Still like to hear from IHUG why gaming servers are so laggy/slow and other
    > ISPs are not having any issues.
    > Either a routing issue somewhere, or they are traffic shaping.


    Perhaps your uplink is getting saturated.

    Done any traffic graphing ?
     
    Mark Robinson, May 6, 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. PistOffSonOfMaggie

    Rudeness is Unacceptable

    PistOffSonOfMaggie, Dec 29, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,594
    Politician Spock
    Jan 8, 2004
  2. Mcafee - Unacceptable performance

    , Oct 16, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    683
    Walter Mautner
    Oct 17, 2006
  3. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Totally Unacceptable

    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Mar 23, 2007, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    530
    Cerebrus
    Apr 2, 2007
  4. John
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    476
  5. SchoolTech
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    576
    ~misfit~
    Feb 3, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page