 Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
 ·Comcast
 ·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| Delay on pingIP 98.148.197.1xx
Ping statistics for 209.123.109.175:
Packets: Sent = 1000, Received = 1000, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 96ms, Maximum = 140ms, Average = 100ms
Ping statistics for 69.31.15.70:(the Virginia server i was talking about)
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 90ms, Maximum = 108ms, Average = 93ms
------------------------------------------------------------------
IP 98.148.247.2xx
Ping statistics for 209.123.109.175:
Packets: Sent = 1000, Received = 1000, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 84ms, Maximum = 122ms, Average = 89ms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
i emailed them about this issuse but they want more data
(President
Time Warner Cable - NY and Los Angeles)
so if you ip starts with 98
it would be nice if you posted your pings to the servers and a tracert
ping -n 30 to do 30 pings |
|
K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | What issue, please? |
|
| reply to Anonymous_
I fail to see what the issue is? 90-108ms on the Virginia server is pretty damn good for coming from Cali. I'm in NH and average 70-80ms to a server I play HL2:Deathmatch on in Atlanta. My brother on DSL gets 20-30ms higher ping to the same server. If you realize what the distances are, and the latency that distance presents, thats not that bad of a ping. I play on some UK servers as well and get 110-130ms on them.
This is the ping statistics from where I live to the Virginia servers you're talking about.
Ping statistics for 69.31.15.70:
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 38ms, Average = 26ms |
|
jimbopalmerTsar of all the Rushers
join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Windjammer Cable
| reply to Anonymous_
I am assuming that you live in Palmdale CA, if you actually live on the east coast, I am full of it.
gig14-0.pldlca1-bsr3.socal.rr.com sure looks to be Palmdale.
209.123.109.175 appears to be near New York City.
Google maps says the shortest possible distance via roads is 2,747 miles, your ping goes both ways for 5,494 miles. The speed of light in a fiber optic cable is 111,600 miles a second. So the theoretical fastest time, if it was directly wired by the shortest path with no routers between them is 50 ms. You are averaging 1/2 the speed of light getting to 209.123.109.175
69.31.15.70 is near Washington DC, Google maps says it is 2,643 to it. Double that, and divide by 111,600 miles a second to get you best theoretically possible ping. 48 ms
In practice, the cabling may well go back to LA then up to San Jose, then Denver, St. Louis, DC, NYC. Lots of routers to slow things down and a less than optimal path. As such, I see no problem with your line that can't be solved by choosing nearer servers or proving Einstein wrong.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish. |
|
Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
4 edits | reply to jimbopalmer
Re: Delay on ping said by jimbopalmer:I am assuming that you live in Palmdale CA, if you actually live on the east coast, I am full of it. gig14-0.pldlca1-bsr3.socal.rr.com sure looks to be Palmdale. 209.123.109.175 appears to be near New York City. Google maps says the shortest possible distance via roads is 2,747 miles, your ping goes both ways for 5,494 miles. The speed of light in a fiber optic cable is 111,600 miles a second. So the theoretical fastest time, if it was directly wired by the shortest path with no routers between them is 50 ms. You are averaging 1/2 the speed of light getting to 209.123.109.175 69.31.15.70 is near Washington DC, Google maps says it is 2,643 to it. Double that, and divide by 111,600 miles a second to get you best theoretically possible ping. 48 ms In practice, the cabling may well go back to LA then up to San Jose, then Denver, St. Louis, DC, NYC. Lots of routers to slow things down and a less than optimal path. As such, I see no problem with your line that can't be solved by choosing nearer servers or proving Einstein wrong. with
ip 98.148.247.2xx i get 78 to 83ms
ip 98.148.197.1xx 90 to 110ms (even in the dead of night 3am to 4 am) |
|
 MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3
2 edits | said by Anonymous_:ip 98.148.247.2xx i get 78 to 83ms ip 98.148.197.1xx 90 to 110ms (even in the dead of night 3am to 4 am) Pings alone don't indicate much, traceroutes are needed.
In your traceroutes where do you find the increase in latency happening? Do you have reverse traceroutes showing similar increases in latency?
Also a 10-20 ms increase in latency isn't much of a problem, it could simply be caused by a different data route, there has to be more of a customer impacting issue than that for just about any tech support from any company to really investigate the problem. |
|
Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
4 edits | let me see if i can get that working "ip" look's like someone took it :(
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms DD-WRT [192.168.1.1]
2 12 ms 13 ms 8 ms cpe-98-148-208-1.socal.res.rr.com [98.148.208.1]
3 8 ms 10 ms 11 ms gig1-16.pldlca1-swt1.socal.rr.com [76.167.11.41]
4 12 ms 8 ms 8 ms cpe-76-167-11-105.socal.res.rr.com [76.167.11.10
5]
5 10 ms 12 ms 13 ms gig2-2.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.34]
6 12 ms 13 ms 13 ms prt22.vnnyca2-rtr2.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.13]
7 22 ms 22 ms 21 ms tge9-3.lamdca1-swt1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.52]
8 106 ms 71 ms 29 ms tge4-0-0.lsanca1-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.56]
9 * * * Request timed out.
10 26 ms 25 ms 24 ms te-3-1.car1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.71.104.149]
11 25 ms 25 ms 23 ms ae-2-3.bar1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.69.132.218]
12 27 ms 34 ms 36 ms ae-6-6.ebr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.136.202
]
13 27 ms 34 ms 37 ms ae-81-81.csw3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.137.1
0]
14 27 ms 24 ms 22 ms ae-33-89.car3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.68.20.13
3]
15 34 ms 35 ms 34 ms telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110
.222]
16 101 ms 105 ms 101 ms nyk-bb2-link.telia.net [80.91.252.166]
17 103 ms 103 ms 104 ms nyk-b3-link.telia.net [80.91.248.178]
18 103 ms 103 ms 103 ms netaccess-114875-nyk-b3.c.telia.net [213.248.83.
186]
19 106 ms 102 ms 102 ms 0.e1-4.tbr1.mmu.nac.net [209.123.10.101]
20 104 ms 103 ms 101 ms 0.e-1-1.tbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.17]
21 105 ms 104 ms 103 ms vlan804.esd1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.2]
22 101 ms 105 ms 103 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
found a "Working IP" 98.148.206.2xx
Tracing route to dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms DD-WRT [192.168.1.1]
2 17 ms 8 ms 13 ms cpe-98-148-192-1.socal.res.rr.com [98.148.192.1]
3 11 ms 9 ms 8 ms gig1-16.pldlca1-swt1.socal.rr.com [76.167.11.41]
4 18 ms 8 ms 8 ms cpe-76-167-11-105.socal.res.rr.com [76.167.11.10
5]
5 9 ms 13 ms 12 ms gig2-2.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.34]
6 13 ms 12 ms 13 ms prt32.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.21]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 34 ms 29 ms 17 ms te-1-3.car1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.79.140.37]
9 76 ms 95 ms 19 ms ae-2-3.bar1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.69.132.218]
10 31 ms 17 ms 21 ms ae-6-6.ebr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.136.202
]
11 27 ms 18 ms 18 ms ae-81-81.csw3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.137.1
0]
12 19 ms 20 ms 17 ms ae-33-89.car3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.68.20.13
3]
13 32 ms 28 ms 35 ms telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110
.222]
14 92 ms 86 ms 85 ms nyk-bb1-link.telia.net [80.91.252.226]
15 92 ms 85 ms 87 ms nyk-b3-link.telia.net [80.91.250.9]
16 84 ms 84 ms 85 ms nac-112088-nyk-b3.c.telia.net [213.248.83.74]
17 88 ms 84 ms 85 ms 0.e1-1.tbr1.ewr.nac.net [209.123.10.129]
18 88 ms 84 ms 86 ms 0.e1-4.tbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.122]
19 89 ms 85 ms 88 ms vlan804.esd1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.2]
20 88 ms 87 ms 88 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
4
boost does not work
now it does?
TTL 86400 is this normal? |
|
MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3 | So far you've shown some inconclusive data.
Do all 98. addresses have issues or is it only certain 98. addresses? Is it only with certain paths, like the one to DSLR you've shown?
In the 2 traces you've shown the routing and latency is fine on RR's network and their upstream provider Level3's network, it just jumps when it hits Telia's network. Then again after Level3's network the path changes through Telia's network and Oac.net network. That's not something RR can control, but it may also not be the issue.
How do reverse traces look?
P.S. Do you realize that your first pic shows your IP 4 times and you only blocked 1 one them out? |
|
Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
3 edits | said by MacLeech:So far you've shown some inconclusive data. Do all 98. addresses have issues or is it only certain 98. addresses? Is it only with certain paths, like the one to DSLR you've shown? less then 10% are fine
i had to renew 10 times to get one working one
only 50% of images load
»Edit This! -- Artify© Edition #199 |
|
|
|
MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3 | said by Anonymous_:less then 10% are fine i had to renew 10 times to get one working one 1 of the 10 of the IPs YOU'VE received are "good".
Are all the addresses you've received in the same subnet or is that 1 address part of a different subnet?
Post the gateways of the "good" IPs and the gateways of "bad" IPs. |
|
Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| Bad ip:98.148.212.xxx gateway: 98.148.208.1
Bad ip:98.148.201.xxx gateway: 98.148.192.1
Bad ip:98.148.201.xxx gateway: 98.148.192.1
Good IP:98.148.215.xxx gateway: 98.148.208.1
Very Bad (127ms spikes) ip:98.148.210.xxx gateway: 98.148.208.1
Bad ip:98.148.201.xxx gateway 98.148.192.1
Good ip:98.148.201.xxx gateway 98.148.192.1
Very Good IP:98.148.247.xxx gateway IP:98.148.246.1
|
|
MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3 | Yet to see a pattern here...
Good and bad IPs in the same subnets.
So is there a pattern to the traceroutes between good and bad IPs? Do the bad ones all go bad in the same spot? Do the bad ones have a different return route? |
|
Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
3 edits | yea same route
also did i forget to say Power boost does not even work that good with the BAD ip's (sometimes not at all)
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms DD-WRT [192.168.1.1]
2 13 ms 21 ms 9 ms cpe-98-148-246-1.socal.res.rr.com [98.148.246.1]
3 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms gig1-16.pldlca1-swt1.socal.rr.com [76.167.11.41]
4 11 ms 8 ms 8 ms cpe-76-167-11-105.socal.res.rr.com [76.167.11.10
5]
5 11 ms 11 ms 9 ms gig2-2.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.34]
6 13 ms 27 ms 12 ms prt32.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.21]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 30 ms 18 ms 24 ms te-1-3.car1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.79.140.37]
9 17 ms 15 ms 18 ms ae-2-3.bar1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.69.132.218]
10 20 ms 29 ms 17 ms ae-6-6.ebr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.136.202
]
11 21 ms 17 ms 19 ms ae-71-71.csw2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.137.6
]
12 21 ms 17 ms 26 ms ae-23-79.car3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.68.20.69
]
13 30 ms 39 ms 30 ms telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110
.222]
14 85 ms 83 ms 84 ms nyk-bb1-link.telia.net [80.91.252.226]
15 98 ms 88 ms 90 ms nyk-b3-link.telia.net [80.91.248.174]
16 85 ms 87 ms 85 ms nac-112088-nyk-b3.c.telia.net [213.248.83.74]
17 89 ms 86 ms 87 ms 0.e1-4.tbr1.mmu.nac.net [209.123.10.101]
18 88 ms 89 ms 85 ms 0.e-1-1.tbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.17]
19 91 ms 86 ms 94 ms vlan804.esd1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.2]
20 87 ms 87 ms 84 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
Trace complete.
Tracing route to dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms DD-WRT [192.168.1.1]
2 15 ms 13 ms 11 ms cpe-98-148-192-1.socal.res.rr.com [98.148.192.1]
3 11 ms 11 ms 13 ms gig1-16.pldlca1-swt1.socal.rr.com [76.167.11.41]
4 22 ms 8 ms 22 ms cpe-76-167-11-105.socal.res.rr.com [76.167.11.10
5]
5 16 ms 13 ms 12 ms gig2-2.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.34]
6 15 ms 13 ms 13 ms prt32.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.21]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 20 ms 20 ms 18 ms te-3-1.car1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.71.104.149]
9 29 ms 17 ms 18 ms ae-2-3.bar1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.69.132.218]
10 25 ms 20 ms 32 ms ae-6-6.ebr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.136.202
]
11 19 ms 32 ms 19 ms ae-81-81.csw3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.137.1
0]
12 20 ms 22 ms 40 ms ae-33-89.car3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.68.20.13
3]
13 31 ms 44 ms 31 ms telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110
.222]
14 99 ms 97 ms 97 ms nyk-bb2-link.telia.net [80.91.252.166]
15 96 ms 95 ms 99 ms nyk-b3-link.telia.net [80.91.248.178]
16 99 ms 96 ms 105 ms netaccess-114875-nyk-b3.c.telia.net [213.248.83.
186]
17 98 ms 96 ms 96 ms 0.e1-1.tbr1.ewr.nac.net [209.123.10.129]
18 99 ms 101 ms 101 ms 0.e1-4.tbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.122]
19 98 ms 97 ms 98 ms vlan804.esd1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.2]
20 102 ms 99 ms 99 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
good
13 telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110
bad
13 telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110 |
|
K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | Please define working/nonworking, or good vs bad. I see nothing in the least of concern in the data you've posted. |
|
| reply to Anonymous_
well hey punker Road Runner aint perfect and you keep whining when your service is quite good for what i have in Austin and your pings are pretty damn good so be happy for what you have or go to something else and if you want to rant about it go and do it somewhere else. And when your trying to make a problem out of what is probably a problem on your machine or the site and not road runner in general. |
|
Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
4 edits | said by TWCHelp_random :
well hey punker Road Runner aint perfect and you keep whining when your service is quite good for what i have in Austin and your pings are pretty damn good so be happy for what you have or go to something else and if you want to rant about it go and do it somewhere else. And when your trying to make a problem out of what is probably a problem on your machine or the site and not road runner in general.
they had two people come out
it has been determined that the issues is on thier end as they tryed two notebook's and another modem (ambit)
and the pings with the AMBIT were Much Higher in the 150ms range |
|
jimbopalmerTsar of all the Rushers
join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Windjammer Cable
| reply to Anonymous_
said by Anonymous_:said by jimbopalmer:You are averaging 1/2 the speed of light getting to 209.123.109.175 As such, I see no problem with your line that can't be solved by choosing nearer servers or proving Einstein wrong. with ip 98.148.247.2xx i get 78 to 83ms ip 98.148.197.1xx 90 to 110ms (even in the dead of night 3am to 4 am) Speed of light is the same even in the early morning, yes.
I get the same trace route to you from MS at both IPs.
3 12ms 9ms 10ms gig3-2.gnwdms-rtr1.natsoe.rr.com [65.28.206.73]
4 27ms 28ms 27ms so-3-1-2-atlaga-rtr1.peakview.rr.com [65.28.206.49]
5 26ms 27ms 24ms ge-2-3-0.cr1.atl20.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.174]
6 27ms 29ms 27ms ae-0-0.cr0.atl20.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.34]
7 41ms 42ms 41ms ae-3-0.cr0.dfw10.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.36]
8 49ms 46ms 45ms ae-0-0.cr0.hou30.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.38]
9 83ms 79ms 79ms ae-3-0.cr0.lax30.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.0]
10 84ms 80ms 81ms 66.109.6.65
11 * 107ms 241ms tge9-4.vnnyca2-swt2.socal.rr.com [76.167.14.144]
12 166ms 89ms 273ms prt21.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.8]
13 116ms 197ms 192ms gig2-3.pldlca1-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.35]
14 120ms 191ms 137ms cpe-76-167-11-65.socal.res.rr.com [76.167.11.65]
15 87ms 90ms 98ms port-channel1-pldlca1-swt5.socal.rr.com [76.167.11.106]
16 90ms 92ms 89ms gig14-0.pldlca1-bsr3.socal.rr.com [76.167.11.42]
17 * * * Request timed out.
said by Anonymous_:also did i forget to say Power boost does not even work that good with the BAD ip's Powerboost will have NO effect on pings ever, just bandwidth, nothing 'fixes' latency.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish. |
|
MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3
1 edit | reply to Anonymous_
said by Anonymous_:it has been determined that the issues is on thier end as they tryed two notebook's and another modem (ambit) Right now it looks like the issue is beyond TWCs end and beyond TWCs upstream providers end, but it's difficult to tell without REVERSE traces from networks that show the issue. |
|
