site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Share Topic
Posting?
Post a:
Post a:
Links: ·Web page ·Network Status ·RR FORUM FAQ ·Cable Users FAQ ·Tweaks ·Broadband Modem
AuthorAll Replies


Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL

reply to louise3000

Re: [TWC] Latency tested at 67

your true last mile latency is between you and speedtest.nyc.rr.com which should be in the teens and only 4-5 hops away. latency to speedcached multicast hosts like google.com and finance.yahoo.com should be in the 30's. beyond that any specific url is subject to TWC's notoriously poor routing - i'm sadly seeing 90 to the a.root-servers.net regional dns server. bottom line is once you rule out your last mile, there is little you can do because TWCable does not have an established support path for poor routing complaints like Verizon does.

@Louise3000 - Latency of 67ms won't cause slow browsing. WHowever, getting NIC drivers from outside ASUS's support site or Microsoft Updates can cause problems. If you know your exact motherboard model, download your board's driver from ASUS's website and install them. Then, allow Windows Update to run and update your drivers as needed. Let me know of the results.

It could also be your browsers need to be reset. This is especially true if you see many 'toolbars' attached to your browser. Truth is, toolbars are no longer needed and many are either spyware/malware or will change your search engine and point you to malware-infested websites. What is the specific website you are having problems trying to reach?

@Packeteers - This is my traceroute to a.root-servers.net. Latency is quite low in the traceroute until it hits Level 3's network at hop 8:

Target Name: a.root-servers.net
IP: 198.41.0.4
Date/Time: 4/7/2013 3:02:50 AM

1 * [-]
2 39 ms cpe-075-191-240-001.triad.res.rr.com [75.191.240.1]
3 21 ms gi12-0-0-3141.gnboncsg-rtr2.triad.rr.com [24.28.225.197]
4 19 ms [24.93.64.58]
5 29 ms [107.14.19.18]
6 38 ms [107.14.19.11]
7 24 ms twc-telus.pr0.chi10.tbone.rr.com [66.109.9.70]
8 81 ms vlan51.ebr1.Atlanta2.Level3.net [4.69.150.62]
9 77 ms ae-63-63.ebr3.Atlanta2.Level3.net [4.69.148.241]
10 76 ms ae-7-7.ebr3.Dallas1.Level3.net [4.69.134.21]
11 77 ms ae-3-3.ebr2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.132.77]
12 78 ms ae-82-82.csw3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.137.26]
13 79 ms ae-3-80.edge2.LosAngeles9.Level3.net [4.69.144.143]
14 87 ms VERISIGN-IN.edge2.LosAngeles9.Level3.net [4.53.230.114]
15 89 ms HOST-158.EDGE-FO.LAX2.VERISIGN.COM [199.7.52.158]
16 93 ms a.root-servers.net [198.41.0.4]

Ping statistics for a.root-servers.net
Packets: Sent = 1, Received = 1, Lost = 0 (0.0%)
Round Trip Times: Minimum = 93ms, Maximum = 93ms, Average = 93ms

Looks like that is where the "problem" may lie if there is even such a problem. As for "routing", all ISPs typically use OSPF for all routing so that traffic is sent the shortest route possible. Notwithstanding, but traceroutes are sometimes inconclusive especially since ISPs and transport/transit-carrier routers treat ICMP traffic with the lowest priority.


Monday, 08-Apr 21:28:36 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 13.5 years online © 1999-2013 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics