Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
1 edit | reply to MacLeech
Re: Delay on ping
let me get my config changed back to 10/1 then i will do the test
my brother is gamming right now |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| reply to Anonymous_
said by Anonymous_  :how »www.traceroute.org |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
 ·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | reply to MacLeech
said by MacLeech :said by Anonymous_ :it has been determined that the issues is on thier end as they tryed two notebook's and another modem (ambit) REVERSE traces from networks that show the issue. how
i will have to get my config changed back to 10/1 as it's set to 6/512 right now(i should have checked before they left) |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
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. |
|
jimbopalmer
Tsar of all the Rushers
join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS
·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. |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | reply to TWCHelp_random
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 |
|
TWCHelp_random
@rr.com
| 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. |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH | reply to Anonymous_
Please define working/nonworking, or good vs bad. I see nothing in the least of concern in the data you've posted. |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
3 edits | reply to MacLeech
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)
good
13 telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110
bad
13 telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110 |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal | reply to Anonymous_
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_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
| reply to MacLeech
|
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| reply to Anonymous_
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_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
3 edits | reply to MacLeech
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 |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| reply to Anonymous_
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_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | reply to MacLeech
let me see if i can get that working "ip" look's like someone took it :(
found a "Working IP" 98.148.206.2xx
boost does not work
now it does?
TTL 86400 is this normal? |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
2 edits | reply to Anonymous_
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_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | reply to jimbopalmer
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) |
|
