dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1153

nolancj
join:2002-06-30
Long Beach, CA

nolancj

Member

[Speed Issues] Help in Long Beach, CA

I'm on 5/512 service. My d/l speeds are decent early mornings, during 'non peak hours'. During peak they slow a LOT. The thing that bothers me more, though, is ping times. Seems charter is saturated here at their hop to QWest.

This is a very recent problem, in the past 10-20 days. Only happens at night, lots of dropped connections, timeouts, etc when on the web.

My signals and the like are all solid. Definately looks like a saturation issue.

Any thoughts on getting this resolved?

PING 66.102.7.104 (66.102.7.104): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 66.102.7.104: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=116.487 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.7.104: icmp_seq=1 ttl=242 time=122.705 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.7.104: icmp_seq=2 ttl=242 time=127.554 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.7.104: icmp_seq=3 ttl=242 time=133.464 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.7.104: icmp_seq=4 ttl=242 time=133.054 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.7.104: icmp_seq=5 ttl=242 time=130.500 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.7.104: icmp_seq=6 ttl=242 time=132.176 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.7.104: icmp_seq=7 ttl=242 time=118.151 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.7.104: icmp_seq=8 ttl=242 time=121.215 ms
64 bytes from 66.102.7.104: icmp_seq=9 ttl=242 time=132.689 ms

traceroute to 66.102.7.104 (66.102.7.104), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 chris_router (192.168.1.1) 1.235 ms 0.737 ms 0.622 ms
2 10.232.128.1 (10.232.128.1) 6.625 ms 9.136 ms 7.971 ms
3 71-9-127-17.static.lsan.ca.charter.com (71.9.127.17) 10.549 ms 17.445 ms 13.110 ms
4 66-215-0-18.static.lsan.ca.charter.com (66.215.0.18) 16.908 ms 8.642 ms 45.129 ms
5 bur-edge-04.inet.qwest.net (65.119.29.133) 128.144 ms 115.440 ms 119.076 ms
6 bur-core-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.13.57) 120.221 ms 119.402 ms 116.712 ms
7 svl-core-02.inet.qwest.net (67.14.12.54) 125.957 ms 124.948 ms 128.328 ms
8 pax-edge-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.214.34) 125.659 ms 124.069 ms 138.761 ms
9 * * *
10 209.85.130.6 (209.85.130.6) 129.080 ms 130.777 ms 137.615 ms
11 72.14.233.131 (72.14.233.131) 132.865 ms 133.477 ms 134.089 ms
12 72.14.233.144 (72.14.233.144) 133.510 ms 130.273 ms 132.359 ms
13 216.239.49.54 (216.239.49.54) 134.873 ms 66.102.7.104 (66.102.7.104) 135.270 ms 141.363 ms
jivemiguel
join:2004-03-20
Long Beach, CA

jivemiguel

Member

I have the same problems here in Long Beach. I have the 5/512 and it slows down starting at 8pm or so. But the slowdown is only noticed if I have to go across the QWEST backbone. Here's a trace:

1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
9 ms 8 ms 6 ms 10.232.64.1
10 ms 10 ms 9 ms 71-9-127-9.static.lsan.ca.charter.com [71.9.127.9]
9 ms 9 ms 9 ms 66-215-0-26.static.lsan.ca.charter.com [66.215.0.26]
114 ms 116 ms 113 ms bur-edge-04.inet.qwest.net [65.119.29.133]
113 ms 141 ms 113 ms bur-core-02.inet.qwest.net [205.171.13.57]
112 ms 112 ms 109 ms lap-brdr-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.213.110]
114 ms 115 ms 116 ms 0.so-5-0-0.BR1.LAX7.ALTER.NET [204.255.168.33]
112 ms 110 ms 122 ms 0.so-6-0-0.XT2.LAX7.ALTER.NET [152.63.112.154]
142 ms 116 ms 116 ms 0.so-2-0-0.XL2.LAX2.ALTER.NET [152.63.115.238]
114 ms 113 ms 115 ms POS4-0.XR2.LAX2.ALTER.NET [152.63.115.230]
117 ms 118 ms 117 ms 194.ATM6-0.GW2.LAX2.ALTER.NET [152.63.113.77]
108 ms 106 ms 106 ms telepacific-lax2-gw.customer.alter.net [157.130.243.166]
132 ms 131 ms 151 ms pos10.cr1.snrfca.telepacific.net [64.60.16.22]
131 ms 132 ms 131 ms pos10.cr1.snjsca.telepacific.net [66.7.234.1]
126 ms 125 ms 126 ms gi100.br1.snjsca.telepacific.net [66.7.224.5]
136 ms 134 ms 133 ms 72-18-246-1-static-ip.telepacific.net [72.18.246.1]

WOW, this looks worse than usual. Anyway, it sucks and I'm a little peeved.
rratss
join:2004-07-22
Los Angeles, CA

rratss to nolancj

Member

to nolancj
yeah, the Qwest path is terrible tonight

  1     1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  WRT54GS [10.0.0.1]
2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms 10.226.128.1
3 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms 66-215-0-169.static.lsan.ca.charter.com [66.215.
0.169]
4 8 ms 9 ms 9 ms 66-215-0-26.static.lsan.ca.charter.com [66.215.0
.26]
5 79 ms 80 ms 79 ms bur-edge-04.inet.qwest.net [65.119.29.133]
6 78 ms 95 ms 82 ms bur-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.13.93]
7 100 ms 100 ms 99 ms svl-core-01.inet.qwest.net [67.14.12.6]
8 97 ms 95 ms 96 ms pax-brdr-02.inet.qwest.net [205.171.214.38]
9 99 ms 95 ms 96 ms if-1-1.core3.PDI-PaloAlto.Teleglobe.net [207.45.
213.133]
10 96 ms 93 ms 92 ms ix-6-2.core3.PDI-PaloAlto.Teleglobe.net [207.45.
213.130]
11 91 ms 91 ms 90 ms g-0-0-0-p150.msr2.sp1.yahoo.com [216.115.107.73]

12 86 ms 90 ms 90 ms te-8-1.bas-a2.sp1.yahoo.com [209.131.32.19]
13 90 ms 90 ms 94 ms f1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com [209.131.36.158]
The only explanation is that Charter is overselling their bandwidth.
sm0kiE
join:2002-01-05
San Gabriel, CA

sm0kiE to nolancj

Member

to nolancj
Mine is like that too!

C:\>tracert www.yahoo.com

Tracing route to www.yahoo-ht2.akadns.net [209.131.36.158]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 6 ms 27 ms 21 ms 10.224.80.1
2 7 ms 8 ms 7 ms 66-215-0-121.static.lsan.ca.charter.com [66.215.
0.121]
3 13 ms 6 ms 12 ms 66-215-0-26.static.lsan.ca.charter.com [66.215.0
.26]
4 104 ms 108 ms 117 ms bur-edge-04.inet.qwest.net [65.119.29.133]
5 136 ms 109 ms 116 ms bur-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.13.93]
6 116 ms 137 ms 145 ms svl-core-01.inet.qwest.net [67.14.12.6]
7 121 ms 126 ms 116 ms pax-brdr-02.inet.qwest.net [205.171.214.38]
8 120 ms 146 ms 120 ms if-1-2.core3.PDI-PaloAlto.Teleglobe.net [207.45.
213.149]
9 131 ms 120 ms 136 ms ix-6-2.core3.PDI-PaloAlto.Teleglobe.net [207.45.
213.130]
10 124 ms 137 ms 127 ms g-0-0-0-p150.msr2.sp1.yahoo.com [216.115.107.73]

11 147 ms 127 ms 126 ms UNKNOWN-209-131-32-23.yahoo.com [209.131.32.23]

12 143 ms * 128 ms f1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com [209.131.36.158]

Trace complete.

nolancj
join:2002-06-30
Long Beach, CA

nolancj

Member

Any techs here with guidance on how to get this addressed? ASAP?

Snavvie
@charter.com

Snavvie

Anon

It's not Charter's fault Qwest is lagging. :P
rratss
join:2004-07-22
Los Angeles, CA

rratss

Member

yeah it is Charter's problem because they are overselling their bandwidth. Charter simply doesn't have a big enough pipe to support all their customers. when their line gets over saturated, latency goes way up.

nolancj
join:2002-06-30
Long Beach, CA

nolancj

Member

That's BS. It IS charters issue. I can guarantee Quest can handle the traffic. It's the capacity that Charter subscribes to that is the issue.

Problems again tonight. 150+ms pings to Yahoo.com. Lovely.

I cannot WAIT for other options in this town. Charter is so history.

HappyBunny9
Hi. Cram It.
Premium Member
join:2001-06-23
Long Beach, CA

4 edits

HappyBunny9

Premium Member

That is why I havent wasted the money on the higher speeds. I figure with the poor latency we've been getting, it wouldnt feel all that much faster. Not to be worth $30 a month or more than I am currently paying anyway.

I've noticed a lot of lag even when browsing during this past week.

You can post all the traceroutes you want but unlike other areas of the country, there are no So Cal charter techs here anymore

You guys do know that Long Beach is putting in FREE wireless broadband (and I believe you will be able to pay for higher speeds). Charter better get their act together--for the crappy lag I am getting, I will go for the FREE slower speeds!

I have an "inside" number to call here in Long Beach--someone that has the time to chase this down can PM me and I am glad to share it. I just dont have time or the energy to hassle with them over this AGAIN.
sm0kiE
join:2002-01-05
San Gabriel, CA

sm0kiE to nolancj

Member

to nolancj
The internet went down for a few minutes, and now that it's back up, tracert shows no more qwest, but other servers. And its worse!

C:\>tracert www.yahoo.com

Tracing route to www.yahoo-ht2.akadns.net [209.131.36.158]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 6 ms 7 ms 5 ms 10.224.80.1
2 28 ms 30 ms 14 ms 66-215-0-121.static.lsan.ca.charter.com [66.215.
0.121]
3 8 ms 6 ms 7 ms 71-80-190-74.static.lsan.ca.charter.com [71.80.1
90.74]
4 350 ms 327 ms 332 ms 12.125.98.37
5 340 ms 302 ms 310 ms gbr1-p100.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.123.28.130]
6 354 ms 336 ms 310 ms tbr1-p013502.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.11.129]
7 300 ms 313 ms 329 ms 12.127.3.209
8 315 ms 321 ms * br1-a3110s9.attga.ip.att.net [192.205.33.230]
9 337 ms 324 ms 354 ms ae-2-54.bbr2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.68.102.97
]
10 348 ms 334 ms 336 ms ae-0-0.bbr1.SanJose1.Level3.net [64.159.1.129]
11 357 ms 360 ms 343 ms ae-13-51.car3.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.68.123.13]

12 340 ms 358 ms 346 ms 4.71.112.14
13 324 ms 335 ms 367 ms g-1-0-0-p161.msr1.sp1.yahoo.com [216.115.107.63]

14 337 ms 333 ms 337 ms UNKNOWN-209-131-32-23.yahoo.com [209.131.32.23]

15 356 ms 347 ms 344 ms f1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com [209.131.36.158]

Trace complete.

C:\>tracert www.google.com

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [66.102.7.147]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 7 ms 15 ms 20 ms 10.224.80.1
2 45 ms 41 ms 23 ms 66-215-0-121.static.lsan.ca.charter.com [66.215.
0.121]
3 9 ms 10 ms 7 ms 71-80-190-70.static.lsan.ca.charter.com [71.80.1
90.70]
4 317 ms 322 ms * 12.125.98.157
5 333 ms 337 ms 322 ms gbr2-p100.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.123.28.134]
6 335 ms 329 ms 334 ms tbr2-p013602.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.11.149]
7 305 ms 316 ms 334 ms 12.127.3.213
8 329 ms 319 ms 320 ms 192.205.33.226
9 375 ms 326 ms 313 ms ae-2-56.bbr2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.68.102.16
1]
10 324 ms 333 ms 340 ms as-2-0.bbr2.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.68.128.157]
11 339 ms 332 ms 317 ms ae-12-53.car2.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.68.123.80]

12 311 ms 348 ms 331 ms unknown.Level3.net [209.247.202.218]
13 330 ms 326 ms 336 ms 66.249.94.227
14 325 ms 332 ms 342 ms 216.239.49.54
15 337 ms 367 ms 345 ms 216.239.49.66
16 326 ms 338 ms 342 ms 66.102.7.147

Trace complete.

GlendaleGuyCA
@charter.com

GlendaleGuyCA

Anon

Yeah im getting this also, In glendale, mine also just went down. Speeds are horrible right now.

stivvy
Technonerd
join:2002-05-08

stivvy

Member

Big maintenance this morning. Hang in there should be cleared up soon.

HappyBunny9
Hi. Cram It.
Premium Member
join:2001-06-23
Long Beach, CA

HappyBunny9

Premium Member

Not today--still is terrible here. It feels like dialup the lag is so bad--I dont even game and its driving me crazy. Sites just time out and never load. As you can see by the traceroute, its bogged down in qwest again. BUy some more bandwidth Charter! (Glad I am not paying for 5 and 10MB--cant even get 3 tonight!)

Ping has started ...

PING cnn.com (64.236.16.116): 56 data bytes

--- cnn.com ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss

ING broadbandreports.com (209.123.109.175): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 209.123.109.175: icmp_seq=0 ttl=49 time=85.116 ms
64 bytes from 209.123.109.175: icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=93.517 ms
64 bytes from 209.123.109.175: icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=89.356 ms
64 bytes from 209.123.109.175: icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=85.811 ms
64 bytes from 209.123.109.175: icmp_seq=4 ttl=49 time=97.909 ms
64 bytes from 209.123.109.175: icmp_seq=5 ttl=49 time=85.853 ms
64 bytes from 209.123.109.175: icmp_seq=9 ttl=49 time=85.505 ms

--- broadbandreports.com ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 7 packets received, 30% packet loss

traceroute to yahoo.com (66.94.234.13), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 10.232.128.1 (10.232.128.1) 20.211 ms 18.318 ms 11.530 ms
2 71-9-127-17.static.lsan.ca.charter.com (71.9.127.17) 9.222 ms 10.322 ms 15.673 ms
3 71-80-190-33.static.lsan.ca.charter.com (71.80.190.33) 23.914 ms 18.511 ms 10.729 ms
4 bur-edge-04.inet.qwest.net (65.118.92.245) 91.092 ms 94.298 ms 95.483 ms
5 bur-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.13.93) 40.437 ms 38.723 ms 37.719 ms
6 svl-core-01.inet.qwest.net (67.14.12.6) 94.002 ms 101.283 ms 92.860 ms
7 pax-brdr-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.214.38) 55.349 ms 38.845 ms 38.878 ms
8 if-1-1.core3.pdi-paloalto.teleglobe.net (207.45.213.133) 56.136 ms 27.605 ms 28.546 ms
9 ix-6-2.core3.pdi-paloalto.teleglobe.net (207.45.213.130) 25.165 ms 26.649 ms 27.587 ms
10 ge-3-0-0-p250.msr2.scd.yahoo.com (216.115.106.181) 31.450 ms ge-4-0-0-p440.msr1.scd.yahoo.com (216.115.106.201) 31.756 ms ge-3-0-0-p240.msr1.scd.yahoo.com (216.115.106.177) 28.391 ms
11 ten-2-3-bas2.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.82.223) 33.554 ms ten-2-3-bas1.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.82.221) 26.565 ms ten-1-3-bas2.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.82.219) 40.327 ms

nolancj
join:2002-06-30
Long Beach, CA

nolancj

Member

What's interesting is that last night the pings were actually BETTER, but packet loss is WAY up and I'm having tons of timeouts.

Damn charter, I never thought I'd be screaming for Verizon, COME ON FIOS, 90803 is premier real-estate!!! Wire us up!
nolancj

nolancj

Member

Last 2 nights things seem to be better. Let's keep our fingers crossed!
sm0kiE
join:2002-01-05
San Gabriel, CA

sm0kiE

Member

It's definately been better! Hope it stays this way also.

HappyBunny9
Hi. Cram It.
Premium Member
join:2001-06-23
Long Beach, CA

HappyBunny9

Premium Member

Yes, it defintely was better last night. Keep our fingers crossed!

Front8
Frontek
Premium Member
join:2002-09-07
us

Front8

Premium Member

The problem should have been fixed last Tuesday at about 3 in the morning.
Snavvie
join:2006-09-28
Louisville, KY

Snavvie

Member

Some people that post on here scare me.

americanada
join:2001-12-19
Covina, CA

americanada

Member

Front knows what he's talking about. Nothing to be scared of there.
sm0kiE
join:2002-01-05
San Gabriel, CA

sm0kiE

Member

Seems like the problem is back, although now the latency is jumpy instead of being constantly bad...

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate to nolancj

Premium Member

to nolancj
You guys are absolutely right -- Has the issue been corrected?

I'm curiuos to see how your traces across the QWEST direct allocation Net Range of 65.112.0.0 - 65.127.255.255 come out.?

nolancj
join:2002-06-30
Long Beach, CA

nolancj

Member

Seeing poor performance on the Qwest hops again. Whatever they did over the weekend that addressed the issue is now broken, again:

2 10.232.128.1 (10.232.128.1) 22.282 ms 6.450 ms 9.374 ms
3 71-9-127-17.static.lsan.ca.charter.com (71.9.127.17) 8.557 ms 9.404 ms 15.642 ms
4 66-215-0-26.static.lsan.ca.charter.com (66.215.0.26) 17.282 ms 12.164 ms 19.655 ms
5 bur-edge-04.inet.qwest.net (65.119.29.133) 72.667 ms 70.944 ms 84.225 ms
6 bur-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.13.93) 15.986 ms 16.984 ms 19.277 ms
7 svl-core-02.inet.qwest.net (67.14.12.54) 18.779 ms 28.496 ms 22.340 ms
sm0kiE
join:2002-01-05
San Gabriel, CA

sm0kiE

Member

Internet was fast earlier today, but the daily problem started again, about 5 minutes ago.

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate to nolancj

Premium Member

to nolancj
The QWEST Equipment serving the Block range of 65.112.0.0 - 65.127.255.255 is the culprit here. If this is occurring at a peak utilization time I would look directly at that serving unit.

In that last report you can see the IP on that edge router, in the block range I mentioned -- specifically.. 65.119.29.133 spikes from 18ms to mid 70ms, then to the next core QWEST router in the block range of : 205.168.0.0 - 205.171.255.255 -- It drops back down to normal, very good, 15-19ms.

So, again, it looks as if that Edge router is going bad, misconfigured, has coffee spilled in it's blade rack -- Or just needs to be upgraded =)

Though it is always hard to tell just where it is, as I ping from my end of the woods to the various QWEST routers -- the edge is about 30ms higher on average after a -t50 than the 205.xxx core, or 67.xxx core.

Just more useless information, but I *think* judging by the allocation of that backbone chain.. from 65.119.29.133 -- 205.171.13.93 -- 67.14.12.54 is odd but goes from..

California to the Northeast to Colorado. Doesn't make alot of sense, but do backbone routes ever map out like you think they should?

HappyBunny9
Hi. Cram It.
Premium Member
join:2001-06-23
Long Beach, CA

HappyBunny9

Premium Member

Its horrible here for me tonight. The fact that speeds/pings/traceroutes are good on the weekend tells us that Charter has oversold its bandwidth. Looks like the usual "do nothing about it" attitude of Charter is "at work".
rratss
join:2004-07-22
Los Angeles, CA

rratss to neofate

Member

to neofate
said by neofate:

Just more useless information, but I *think* judging by the allocation of that backbone chain.. from 65.119.29.133 -- 205.171.13.93 -- 67.14.12.54 is odd but goes from..

California to the Northeast to Colorado. Doesn't make alot of sense, but do backbone routes ever map out like you think they should?
5 bur-edge-04.inet.qwest.net (65.119.29.133) 72.667 ms 70.944 ms 84.225 ms
6 bur-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.13.93) 15.986 ms 16.984 ms 19.277 ms
7 svl-core-02.inet.qwest.net (67.14.12.54) 18.779 ms 28.496 ms 22.340 ms

Looks more like Burbank, CA to Burbank, CA to Sunnyvale, CA
don't you think?

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate

Premium Member

said by rratss:
said by neofate:

Just more useless information, but I *think* judging by the allocation of that backbone chain.. from 65.119.29.133 -- 205.171.13.93 -- 67.14.12.54 is odd but goes from..

California to the Northeast to Colorado. Doesn't make alot of sense, but do backbone routes ever map out like you think they should?
5 bur-edge-04.inet.qwest.net (65.119.29.133) 72.667 ms 70.944 ms 84.225 ms
6 bur-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.13.93) 15.986 ms 16.984 ms 19.277 ms
7 svl-core-02.inet.qwest.net (67.14.12.54) 18.779 ms 28.496 ms 22.340 ms

Looks more like Burbank, CA to Burbank, CA to Sunnyvale, CA
don't you think?
Yes, practically.. physical locations you are most likely 100% correct.. the "bur" and "svl" and given your location I would hope would indicate the physical location of those routers.. I was just going by registered IP locations -- In which registered long/lat indicated the "guess" I revealed

I suppose the registration.. (even though it clearly said "physical location") -- Must be a registered mailing address/troubleshooting .. Office.. or whathaveyou --

Wouldn't make sense for it to run across the nation and back again.. Which had me wondering lol =)

Nonetheless, that makes no difference in the problem

Thanks for clearing that up though.

To all you network savants -- If you have a normal ping reply from router 1 - then to the next hop the ping is spiked -- Which is the clear indicator of where to troubleshoot.. Router 1, or 2? Or could it be either?

IE: Router 1 reply's with normal ping, so it must be "ok", but router 2 reply's with elevated ping.. So router 2 is in question of utilization/configuration or a host of other possibilities.

Or,.. Could router 2's ping be elevated from poor performance from the chain before it.. IE: Router 1?

Again, could it be either? I've wondered that --
rratss
join:2004-07-22
Los Angeles, CA

1 edit

rratss to nolancj

Member

to nolancj
it could be either. here's a diagram

say you on the PC wanted to traceroute to the server. this is what the trace route would look like

1: 192.168.1.1
2: 192.168.3.1
3: 192.168.4.2

the traceroute only hits 1 interface of each router, so you don't even see 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.4.1
likewise, if the server was tracerouting to you, it wouldn't see 192.168.3.1 and 192.168.1.1

now, if the traceroute looked something like this

1: 192.168.1.1 - 5ms
2: 192.168.3.1 - 500ms
3: 192.168.4.2 - 510ms

the problem is anywhere between the 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.3.1 interfaces... that includes the software/hardware inside both routers, and the circuit in between them. so there is really no way to find out from a traceroute what the root cause of the problem is.

hope that made sense.

neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL

neofate to nolancj

Premium Member

to nolancj
Sure makes perfect sense -- Thanks. Though, traces still narrow down the problem and can tell you what it is not. Which is why I was referencing in the Block addresses of these routers.

IE: If the spike is 2 hops out of Charters network then you know it isn't where Charter hits the backbone or any router inside,.. specifically.

Though, if the spike is on the first router , say AT&T owned, then it very well could be the Edge router going into AT&T's backbone.

Your diagram helped alot though on the allocations assigned within a single router. I think many people think of routers like "home routers" with one unique entry and exit point,.. Where commercial routers have many 'addresses' and multiple wans input and output. Which is why I tend to think it could be utilization, but also configuration, and just pure hardware failure.. ie: The chipset/circuitry -- It's complex, but you have to start somewhere.

Not to mention the equipment isn't anywhere near cheap =)