[AusNOG] Anyone else experiencing high latency, low speeds through internode?
Jeremy Visser
jeremy at visser.name
Sun Jul 4 17:35:42 EST 2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Karl Kloppenborg said:
> Just stopped then :P
In which case it's entirely possible it's an exchange congestion issue.
Had the same issue at my exchange (YOOL, Telstra only) a few months ago
(no RIMs in my area — just an under-supplied exchange). I logged the
fault with Internode, but they said they couldn't do anything as Telstra
only deal with packet loss, not latency issues (support rep's words, not
mine).
But evidently other users had been complaining, as the exchange was
recently capped to 3 mbit (from 8 mbit), and latency issues have now
since been fixed.
Logging the fault with Internode is a good idea for precisely the above
reason — it means you are a statistic (in the good sense). Assuming your
exchange is Telstra only as well, it means Internode can use your
'statistic' as ammo against Telstra.
- --
Oh, and a side note: can list participants *please* learn to bottom-post
and trim the excess garbage from the bottom of posts? It's a little
unrewarding scrolling through lines and lines of text you've already
read only to find there's nothing worthwhile posted at the bottom of it.
And if you think it's just me, it *is* also specified in the list charter:
> (a) Don't quote 50 lines of text and add one line to it. Quote what is
> necessary to maintain context, but don't overdo it;
Like please trim this garbage if you're not actually going to write
anything underneath it:
> karl:~ karl$ ping google.com <http://google.com>
> PING google.com <http://google.com> (66.102.11.104): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=36.551 ms
> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=37.237 ms
> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=39.820 ms
> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=39.882 ms
> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=38.978 ms
> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=38.650 ms
> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=41.775 ms
> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=7 ttl=57 time=38.077 ms
> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=8 ttl=57 time=37.745 ms
> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=9 ttl=57 time=37.463 ms
> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=10 ttl=57 time=37.565 ms
> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=11 ttl=57 time=36.728 ms
> ^C
> --- google.com <http://google.com> ping statistics ---
> 13 packets transmitted, 12 packets received, 7.7% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 36.551/38.373/41.775/1.462 ms
> karl:~ karl$
>
>
> Oh well :) thanks for the input guys.
> *
> Cheers!
> Karl Kloppenborg*
> /
> /
> /
> /
> /
>
>
> /
> /
> /
>
> On 04/07/2010, at 16:58, Karl Kloppenborg wrote:
>
>> I just did what you said, disconnected all devices from my network,
>> just down all background processes like bittorrent and what not.
>>
>> karl:~ karl$ ping google.com <http://google.com/>
>> PING google.com <http://google.com/> (66.102.11.104): 56 data bytes
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=1247.044 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=1474.732 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=1339.901 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=1003.496 ms
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 5
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=1778.328 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=7 ttl=57 time=490.516 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=8 ttl=57 time=673.923 ms
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 9
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=9 ttl=57 time=1004.026 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=10 ttl=57 time=1004.760 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=11 ttl=57 time=1004.049 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=12 ttl=57 time=505.699 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=13 ttl=57 time=397.397 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=14 ttl=57 time=135.554 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=15 ttl=57 time=1004.349 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=17 ttl=57 time=148.008 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=18 ttl=57 time=105.495 ms
>> Request timeout for icmp_seq 19
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=19 ttl=57 time=1004.019 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=20 ttl=57 time=1001.950 ms
>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104: icmp_seq=21 ttl=57 time=924.164 ms
>> ^C
>> --- google.com <http://google.com/> ping statistics ---
>> 23 packets transmitted, 19 packets received, 17.4% packet loss
>> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 105.495/855.127/1778.328/450.816 ms
>> karl:~ karl$
>>
>> *
>> Cheers!
>> Karl Kloppenborg*
>> /
>> /
>> /
>> /
>> /
>> /
>> /
>> /
>>
>> On 04/07/2010, at 16:56, Karl Kloppenborg wrote:
>>
>>> /
>>> /
>>> /
>>> /
>>> /I have already logged support with them...
>>>
>>> Just thought I would like to see what your thoughts were,
>>> Seems a bit strange to just suddenly "Do" this.
>>> *
>>> Cheers!
>>> Karl Kloppenborg*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> /
>>> /
>>>
>>>
>>> /
>>> /
>>> /
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2010, at 16:52, Scott Howard wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1300 788 233
>>>>
>>>> Internode's customer support is excellent, and (with no offense to
>>>> MMC!) far better than you're going to get here...
>>>>
>>>> Scott.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Karl Kloppenborg <karl at karltec.net
>>>> <mailto:karl at karltec.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yeah,
>>>> Rebooted three - four times.
>>>>
>>>> Checked all computers on the network (two of them) turned off
>>>> the other one, plus checked my macbook for transfers happening
>>>> in the background, nothing out of the normal.
>>>>
>>>> I have also checked the DHCP table for any people who might have
>>>> hacked and jumping my wifi (Tin foil hats :D )
>>>>
>>>> Nothing out of the ordinary...
>>>>
>>>> Very strange,
>>>>
>>>> DSL Status: Connected
>>>> DSL Modulation Mode: MultiMode
>>>> DSL Path Mode: Interleaved
>>>> Downstream Rate: 9888 kbps
>>>> Upstream Rate: 128 kbps
>>>> Downstream Margin: 9 db
>>>> Upstream Margin: 11 db
>>>> Downstream Line Attenuation: 25 db
>>>> Upstream Line Attenuation: 7.5 db
>>>> Downstream Transmit Power: 10 db
>>>> Upstream Transmit Power: 19 db
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> PVC Connection
>>>> Encapsulation: RFC 2516 PPPoE
>>>> Multiplexing: LLC
>>>> Qos: UBR
>>>> Pcr Rate: 0
>>>> Scr Rate: 0
>>>> Autodetect: Enable
>>>> VPI: 8
>>>> VCI: 35
>>>> Enable: Yes
>>>> PVC Status: Up
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> Karl Kloppenborg*
>>>> /
>>>> /
>>>> /
>>>> /
>>>> /
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /
>>>> /
>>>> /
>>>>
>>>> On 04/07/2010, at 16:43, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're seeing 700ms+ on the first hop.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd suggest checking if you're transferring a lot of stuff
>>>>> and/or just try rebooting your ADSL modem/router.
>>>>>
>>>>> MMC
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/07/2010, at 4:10 PM, Karl Kloppenborg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey Matthew,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are right, how very noob of me to :P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> karl:~ karl$ traceroute google.com <http://google.com/>
>>>>>> traceroute to google.com <http://google.com/> (66.102.11.104),
>>>>>> 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
>>>>>> 1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 4.504 ms 1.418 ms 1.175 ms
>>>>>> 2 lns20.syd7.internode.on.net
>>>>>> <http://lns20.syd7.internode.on.net/> (150.101.199.219)
>>>>>> 981.656 ms 716.172 ms 818.604 ms
>>>>>> 3 te3-3.cor2.syd7.internode.on.net
>>>>>> <http://te3-3.cor2.syd7.internode.on.net/> (150.101.195.13)
>>>>>> 743.925 ms 688.767 ms 136.491 ms
>>>>>> 4 gi6-0-0-145.bdr1.syd6.internode.on.net
>>>>>> <http://gi6-0-0-145.bdr1.syd6.internode.on.net/>
>>>>>> (150.101.195.245) 142.577 ms 232.041 ms 921.565 ms
>>>>>> 5 gw.google.com <http://gw.google.com/> (150.101.225.34)
>>>>>> 1126.228 ms 920.613 ms 819.387 ms
>>>>>> 6 66.249.95.232 (66.249.95.232) 409.420 ms 408.016 ms
>>>>>> 718.100 ms
>>>>>> 7 64.233.174.242 (64.233.174.242) 716.887 ms 939.990 ms
>>>>>> 1228.640 ms
>>>>>> 8 syd01s01-in-f104.1e100.net
>>>>>> <http://syd01s01-in-f104.1e100.net/> (66.102.11.104) 627.500
>>>>>> ms 907.453 ms 432.102 ms
>>>>>> karl:~ karl$
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>> Karl Kloppenborg*
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/07/2010, at 16:38, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Karl,
>>>>>>> I have no idea where you are. If you're having an issue then
>>>>>>> at least a traceroute would be good as we terminate DSL in 13
>>>>>>> sites in Australia, so even narrowing that down, especially
>>>>>>> with 9 IXes we peer at in Australia plus significant private
>>>>>>> peering, it's a bit tricky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MMC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/07/2010, at 3:55 PM, Karl Kloppenborg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry didn't mean to use it as a support channel, was more
>>>>>>>> asking if it is indeed related to the PIPE post.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>>>> Karl Kloppenborg*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2010, at 16:22, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Karl,
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all the detail,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suggest you contact
>>>>>>>>> https://secure.internode.on.net/contact/online/#support
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MMC
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2010, at 3:34 PM, Karl Kloppenborg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Noggers,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seems I am getting really poor speeds on Internode
>>>>>>>>>> residential plus some pretty big latency issues for google
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> karl:~ karl$ ping google.com <http://google.com/>
>>>>>>>>>> PING google.com <http://google.com/> (66.102.11.104): 56
>>>>>>>>>> data bytes
>>>>>>>>>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104 <http://66.102.11.104/>:
>>>>>>>>>> icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=297.618 ms
>>>>>>>>>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104 <http://66.102.11.104/>:
>>>>>>>>>> icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=136.979 ms
>>>>>>>>>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104 <http://66.102.11.104/>:
>>>>>>>>>> icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=182.588 ms
>>>>>>>>>> 64 bytes from 66.102.11.104 <http://66.102.11.104/>:
>>>>>>>>>> icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=240.112 ms
>>>>>>>>>> ^C
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I might just be reiterating over the PIPE issue though?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>>>>>> Karl Kloppenborg*
>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <ATT00001..txt>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
Rule of thumb: if you're quoting or nesting the "AusNOG mailing list"
signature, you're probably Doing It Wrong (tm).
While I'm at it, I'd also like to request people not post in HTML to the
list (also specified in the list charter), but if people can't follow
simple directions like not quoting the entire thread, then there's
probably not much chance of that happening.
Yours in good faith,
Jeremy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkwwOcoACgkQvs6Qqs8TxBrsaQCfdNV+TVpQ8D766DnjyNWjwwrK
bF4An0F4IGFkhafcE+ArSkvD5+WQ6HjQ
=m288
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list