dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5397
share rss forum feed


sinshiva

@embarqhsd.net

1 edit

[CenturyTel] dear centurytel/centurylink

Click for full size
I called your tech support yesterday, got bumped to your 'advanced tech support' - they were very helpful. your company, however, is really pissing me off.

Between myself and the Tech, we clearly established this is your problem. please replace this [G.D.] router or i'm gone. thankfully, there's another DSL provider here in Tallahassee, FL.

The router at 208.110.248.133 is causing my bandwidth to fluxuate between 1-9 of the 10mbit I am paying for. Worse, this one router causes my latency to vary between 100-300ms to everywhere. normally, i have ~15ms ping to google's DNS server at 8.8.8.8.

I will say that there has been some improvement since yesterday, averaging about 2/3 latency of what it had been. this morning I even had a normal connection for a little while, sounds like the tech did what i suggested and got somebody to restart this piece of crap. unfortunately, this did not last long.

replace this f*cker.


chpalmer

join:2002-11-18
Belfair, WA
Problem is that if your other ISP has to use C-Link for the actual connection to your premises, they are only selling 1.5mbps connections to other ISP's meaning your SOL.



bctrainers

join:2004-08-03
Olathe, KS
reply to sinshiva
Looks like a route between Jacksonville, FL and your house/location of where the DSL box is at, has some ongoing congestion. Needless to say, very erratic ping responses from hops 8 and 9 via mtr. 208.110.248.138, there onwards shows to be an issue, which is most likely the same physical device as shown by your traceroute. I'm not seeing packet loss however.

                                     My traceroute  [v0.82]
router.home.lan (0.0.0.0)                                              Sun Jan 12 20:07:31 2014
Keys:  Help   Display mode   Restart statistics   Order of fields   quit
                                                       Packets               Pings
 Host                                                Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
 1. ks-76-7-12-129.sta.embarqhsd.net                  0.0%   306   27.5   6.5   4.2  94.5   8.0
 2. ks-76-7-223-22.sta.embarqhsd.net                  0.3%   305    4.9   6.8   4.2 187.3  11.6
 3. 208.110.241.153                                   0.0%   305    6.1  10.4   4.7 144.6  14.6
 4. bb-nlrkargp-jx9-01-xe-11-1-0.core.centurytel.net  0.0%   305   14.5  18.0  14.0 121.7  10.5
 5. bb-atlngamv-jx9-01-ae5-0.core.centurytel.net      0.0%   305   27.6  33.5  27.1 145.4  14.9
 6. bb-tlhsflxa-jx9-02-xe-11-1-0.core.centurytel.net  0.0%   305   45.4  36.9  33.0  95.3   9.4
 7. 208-110-248-138.centurylink.net                   0.0%   305   33.8  35.2  32.8  92.1   6.4
 8. fl-67-232-254-234.sta.embarqhsd.net               0.0%   305  221.6 159.1  94.4 266.6  46.3
 9. fl-67-235-192-1.dhcp.embarqhsd.net                0.0%   305  139.7 158.8  94.0 328.1  48.8
 

Jitter from routes shown above
router.home.lan (0.0.0.0)                                              Sun Jan 12 20:07:41 2014
Keys:  Help   Display mode   Restart statistics   Order of fields   quit
                                                      Packets               Pings
 Host                                               Drop   Rcv    Avg Gmean Jttr Javg Jmax Jint
 1. ks-76-7-12-129.sta.embarqhsd.net                   0   316    6.7   5.5  5.4  3.9 89.7 191.
 2. ks-76-7-223-22.sta.embarqhsd.net                   1   315    7.1   5.6  9.3  4.6 182. 208.
 3. 208.110.241.153                                    0   316   10.4   7.4 23.3  9.0 138. 196.
 4. bb-nlrkargp-jx9-01-xe-11-1-0.core.centurytel.ne    0   316   18.3  16.8 40.5  6.2 107. 242.
 5. bb-atlngamv-jx9-01-ae5-0.core.centurytel.net       0   315   33.5  31.6  1.0  9.8 116. 183.
 6. bb-tlhsflxa-jx9-02-xe-11-1-0.core.centurytel.ne    0   315   37.1  36.3  0.3  5.9 52.1 174.
 7. 208-110-248-138.centurylink.net                    0   315   35.2  34.9  0.3  3.3 58.7 112.
 8. fl-67-232-254-234.sta.embarqhsd.net                0   315  159.8 153.0  3.1 53.4 147. 623.
 9. fl-67-235-192-1.dhcp.embarqhsd.net                 0   315  158.7 151.3 16.1 52.2 221. 857.
 


sinshiva

@embarqhsd.net
reply to chpalmer
thank you both for your replies. looks like your right about the other provider, too, chpalmer

@bctrainers; erratic is putting it mildly, heh. currently;

C:\Users\renee>ping 208.110.248.133

Pinging 208.110.248.133 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 208.110.248.133: bytes=32 time=227ms TTL=59
Reply from 208.110.248.133: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=59
Reply from 208.110.248.133: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=59
Reply from 208.110.248.133: bytes=32 time=232ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 208.110.248.133:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 113ms, Maximum = 270ms, Average = 210ms

pretty much any game server i try to play on, anywhere, gives me an average 300ms latency. i'm about at my wit's end.

in all honesty, until these last few days, i've LOVED the latency centurylink has given me. however, now i may as well pop in the old AoL 3.0 disc.


dondude

join:2005-09-15
Lehigh Acres, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

2 edits
Down by Ft. Myers getting ok ping here.
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Mike>ping 208.110.248.133

Pinging 208.110.248.133 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 208.110.248.133: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 208.110.248.133: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 208.110.248.133: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59
Reply from 208.110.248.133: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 208.110.248.133:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 31ms, Maximum = 41ms, Average = 35ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Mike>tracert 8.8.8.8

Tracing route to google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 * 2 ms 1 ms modem.domain [192.168.0.1]
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 32 ms 20 ms 22 ms 172.16.229.150
4 21 ms 19 ms 26 ms host-229.embarqservices.net [74.5.227.229]
5 25 ms 20 ms 23 ms 208-110-248-145.centurylink.net [208.110.248.145
]
6 28 ms 23 ms 24 ms bb-miauflws-jx9-01-xe-1-1-0.core.centurytel.net
[208.110.248.189]
7 33 ms 25 ms 23 ms 72.14.219.248
8 32 ms 44 ms 28 ms 209.85.253.74
9 39 ms 37 ms 37 ms 209.85.252.96
10 38 ms 39 ms 38 ms 209.85.253.90
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 37 ms 54 ms 47 ms google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8]

Trace complete.

This is on my 10 year old XP laptop using wireless G.


sinshiva

@embarqhsd.net
tried again from the router directly attached;

admin@nerieus:/tmp/home/root# ping 208.110.248.133
PING 208.110.248.133 (208.110.248.133): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=0 ttl=60 time=141.064 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=1 ttl=60 time=78.452 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=2 ttl=60 time=79.598 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=3 ttl=60 time=136.395 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=4 ttl=60 time=110.609 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=5 ttl=60 time=138.202 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=6 ttl=60 time=104.517 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=7 ttl=60 time=71.162 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=8 ttl=60 time=205.434 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=9 ttl=60 time=79.254 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=10 ttl=60 time=148.250 ms
^X64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=11 ttl=60 time=108.192 ms

--- 208.110.248.133 ping statistics ---
12 packets transmitted, 12 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 71.162/116.760/205.434 ms

it does seem lower, but it's still pretty awful. usually, my latency is very low no matter the time of day. i don't understand why it would suddenly start fluxuating at different hours

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
reply to sinshiva
i should have registered sooner so i could have editted my posts, my apologies.

admin@nerieus:/tmp/home/root# traceroute 8.8.8.8
traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 fl-67-235-192-1.dhcp.embarqhsd.net (67.235.192.1) 7.697 ms 6.743 ms 6.625 ms
2 fl-67-235-246-45.dhcp.embarqhsd.net (67.235.246.45) 7.155 ms 7.255 ms 6.864 ms
3 fl-67-232-254-233.sta.embarqhsd.net (67.232.254.233) 111.149 ms 69.603 ms 68.699 ms
4 208-110-248-137.centurylink.net (208.110.248.137) 110.112 ms 79.450 ms 74.853 ms
5 bb-atlngamv-jx9-01-xe-10-1-0.core.cenrurytel.net (208.110.248.57) 92.895 ms 89.315 ms 130.745 ms
6 206.51.71.30 (206.51.71.30) 125.669 ms 89.623 ms 82.693 ms
7 72.14.233.56 (72.14.233.56) 94.595 ms 72.14.233.54 (72.14.233.54) 125.381 ms 82.152 ms
8 66.249.94.24 (66.249.94.24) 90.370 ms 66.249.94.6 (66.249.94.6) 88.343 ms 66.249.94.20 (66.249.94.20) 125.076 ms
9 209.85.243.254 (209.85.243.254) 110.267 ms 64.233.174.133 (64.233.174.133) 112.787 ms 209.85.243.254 (209.85.243.254) 89.331 ms
10 *


well, it appears the hop before the suspected router is now having issues. maybe that's the router that's actually causing all my trouble;

fl-67-232-254-233.sta.embarqhsd.net (67.232.254.233)

i think i shall both e-mail CL and try calling them again to let them now. i'd be ecstatic if they could get something done about this. while i wait, care to test the above router?

admin@nerieus:/tmp/home/root# ping 67.232.254.233
PING 67.232.254.233 (67.232.254.233): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=0 ttl=62 time=126.588 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=1 ttl=62 time=123.711 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=2 ttl=62 time=120.214 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=3 ttl=62 time=125.415 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=4 ttl=62 time=118.970 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=5 ttl=62 time=119.529 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=6 ttl=62 time=132.279 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=7 ttl=62 time=128.582 ms

--- 67.232.254.233 ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 118.970/124.411/132.279 ms

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
well, i spoke with a tech, updated them on my findings, and they informed me that this issue actually was marked an outage and that they are in the process of doing things like rebooting some areas of their network since my call last night. if anybody in the area experiences some weirdness, this may be why. i was directed to give them a call if this persists after tomorrow, etc.

thank you centurylink, i can breathe a little easier now.

good lord;

admin@nerieus:/tmp/home/root# ping 67.232.254.233
PING 67.232.254.233 (67.232.254.233): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=0 ttl=62 time=46.687 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=1 ttl=62 time=41.376 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=2 ttl=62 time=40.143 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=3 ttl=62 time=21.375 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=4 ttl=62 time=30.521 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=5 ttl=62 time=35.652 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=6 ttl=62 time=22.576 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=7 ttl=62 time=21.588 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=8 ttl=62 time=28.506 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=9 ttl=62 time=36.366 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=10 ttl=62 time=51.398 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=11 ttl=62 time=47.173 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=12 ttl=62 time=49.390 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=13 ttl=62 time=52.344 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=14 ttl=62 time=66.390 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=15 ttl=62 time=53.805 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=16 ttl=62 time=65.630 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=17 ttl=62 time=58.975 ms

--- 67.232.254.233 ping statistics ---
18 packets transmitted, 18 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 21.375/42.771/66.390 ms


hot damn, i don't know if this was my doing, but this is vastly improved over just a little while ago

whoooooooo


admin@nerieus:/tmp/home/root# ping 8.8.8.8
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=0 ttl=48 time=33.596 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=1 ttl=48 time=52.011 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=2 ttl=48 time=37.465 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=3 ttl=48 time=14.774 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=4 ttl=48 time=30.792 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=5 ttl=48 time=40.135 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=6 ttl=48 time=16.477 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=7 ttl=48 time=22.649 ms

--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 14.774/30.987/52.011 ms


that's more like it!!

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
reply to sinshiva
i'm giddy;

C:\Users\renee>ping 8.8.8.8

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 16ms, Average = 14ms


now THAT'S what i expect to see :)

[edit/]
C:\Users\renee>ping 8.8.8.8

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 14ms


eat that stability, cable users

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
reply to sinshiva
Click for full size
this is why i use dsl
Test results attached.

The Chicago latency is about 50% higher than if i were to test at around 5am. definitely can't blame centurylink for that. also, latency from tallahassee to atlanta and texas are right with the margins; i don't know why, but i usually get better RTTs to chicago and new york, but that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

i'm very, very, VERY happy right now.

Beezel

join:2008-12-15
Las Vegas, NV
reply to sinshiva
Keep in mind that there was a bout of bad weather from the mid west to the east. That could have something to do with issues. Snow melting and flooding happening.


Tivon

join:2008-10-31
Tallahassee, FL
reply to sinshiva
Hey Sinshiva,

I live in Tallahassee and I have the 10 down CL plan as well. This week has been full of Latency problems that I've never had before in years with CL. Normally my pings are about 46ms but now they are all over the place past 300ms! It's so random.. What is ticking me off the most is that in my BF4 game if my ping goes above 250 the AutoBot Admin kicks me from the game for high latency. (RAGE!@#!)

I'm not at my house right now, I'm at work, don't have the numbers in front of me. I did make some png's from PingPlotter that I'll add if the problem keeps going. From memory I also have a 67.???.???.??? IPaddress. I also noticed the latency jumping up at the 3 ~ 5 hops.

This afternoon at around 5pm I used PingPlotter and SpeedTest.net and it was perfect, but as the night went on playing BF4 the problem came back and it didn't go away even after 10pm as I left for work angry and questioning life. (Why Lord!?)

I have to admit it's making me think about going with Comcast Internet.

ArizonaSteve

join:2004-01-31
Apache Junction, AZ
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·CenturyLink

1 edit
reply to sinshiva
I'd like to check that myself but there's no tracert in Linux! Windows has a lot of tracert utilities but Linux doesn't, Weird! So anyway I got out my Windows laptop and checked it but the longest ping time is just 70ms since I connect to Qwest in Phoenix then go right to Los Angeles.

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
reply to sinshiva
hello Tivon, i'm happy to report that my latency is still low today - consistent 14ms to 8.8.8.8 !!

ArizonaSteve; traceroute is the linux equivalent of tracert

cheers


Tivon

join:2008-10-31
Tallahassee, FL
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Glad to hear your problem is fixed, but I'm still having issues..

I don't want to hijack your thread, but I feel it's all related.

Just for science I've attached some images.

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

4 edits
sorry to hear you're having troubles. i just tested what appears to be the first problematic hop for you;

Your Hop 6

admin@nerieus:/tmp/home/root# ping 208.110.248.74
PING 208.110.248.74 (208.110.248.74): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 208.110.248.74: seq=0 ttl=61 time=8.288 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.74: seq=1 ttl=61 time=8.298 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.74: seq=2 ttl=61 time=8.087 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.74: seq=3 ttl=61 time=15.548 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.74: seq=4 ttl=61 time=9.482 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.74: seq=5 ttl=61 time=8.280 ms

--- 208.110.248.74 ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 8.087/9.663/15.548 ms


your hop 5

admin@nerieus:/tmp/home/root# ping 208.110.248.133
PING 208.110.248.133 (208.110.248.133): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=0 ttl=60 time=8.038 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=1 ttl=60 time=8.087 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=2 ttl=60 time=8.188 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.133: seq=3 ttl=60 time=11.884 ms

--- 208.110.248.133 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 8.038/9.049/11.884 ms


your hop 4

admin@nerieus:/tmp/home/root# ping 208.110.248.193
PING 208.110.248.193 (208.110.248.193): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 208.110.248.193: seq=0 ttl=57 time=21.971 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.193: seq=1 ttl=57 time=22.680 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.193: seq=2 ttl=57 time=22.445 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.193: seq=3 ttl=57 time=31.529 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.193: seq=4 ttl=57 time=26.327 ms

--- 208.110.248.193 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 21.971/24.990/31.529 ms
your hop 4 looks like where it starts to get a little high for me

your hop 3

admin@nerieus:/tmp/home/root# ping 208.110.248.97
PING 208.110.248.97 (208.110.248.97): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 208.110.248.97: seq=0 ttl=55 time=38.521 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.97: seq=1 ttl=55 time=38.097 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.97: seq=2 ttl=55 time=38.311 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.97: seq=3 ttl=55 time=38.678 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.97: seq=4 ttl=55 time=39.031 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.97: seq=5 ttl=55 time=59.000 ms
64 bytes from 208.110.248.97: seq=6 ttl=55 time=38.041 ms

--- 208.110.248.97 ping statistics ---
7 packets transmitted, 7 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 38.041/41.382/59.000 ms


that seems rather high considering were in the same city...

might want to give them a call


Tivon

join:2008-10-31
Tallahassee, FL
Click for full size
said by sinshiva:

sorry to hear your having troubles. i just tested what appears to be the first problematic hop for you;

This morning everything tested out great from 8am to 11am. All the pings are normal and downloads running smooth. I played BF4 for 2 hours without a hitch. Praying this problem melted away and does not return.

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
reply to sinshiva
hm. 30ms+ still looks kinda high to me. i have a feeling your issues may return; just now from a machine behind 2 routers at my network;

C:\Users\renee>ping 8.8.8.8

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 15ms, Average = 14ms


this is obviously perfectly acceptable for me, i usually only see consistent 14ms at less than peak hours. when i was having issues, i'd typically see at minimum double these numbers, which looks like what you are seeing now. however, i don't know what your 8.8.8.8 RTT's looked like on a good day


Tivon

join:2008-10-31
Tallahassee, FL
reply to sinshiva
Click for full size
Click for full size
The problem returned this afternoon.. :/

I've attached the good morning and the bad afternoon images.

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

4 edits
well, for quite a while things were looking very good for me, but...

C:\Users\renee>tracert 8.8.8.8

Tracing route to google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms NERIEUS [192.168.87.1]
2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms fl-67-235-192-1.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [67.235.192.1]
3 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms fl-67-235-242-53.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [67.235.242.53]
4 218 ms 219 ms 231 ms fl-67-232-254-233.sta.embarqhsd.net [67.232.254.233]
5 222 ms 213 ms 218 ms 208-110-248-137.centurylink.net [208.110.248.137]
6 298 ms 296 ms 292 ms bb-atlngamv-jx9-01-xe-10-1-0.core.cenrurytel.net
[208.110.248.57]
7 216 ms 210 ms 219 ms ^C

looking pretty nasty atm. hopefully it's being worked on. i'm gonna give it til midnight before i call and see what's up.

lol, this forum is weird, took me way too many tries to make this readable

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
reply to Tivon
things have calmed down slightly;

C:\Users\renee>ping 8.8.8.8

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 85ms, Maximum = 87ms, Average = 86ms

still piss-poor, unfortunately

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
reply to Tivon
this router appears to be kicking my ass

ASUSWRT-Merlin RT-N66U_3.0.0.4 Sun Jan 12 19:55:17 UTC 2014
admin@nerieus:/tmp/home/root# ping 67.232.254.233
PING 67.232.254.233 (67.232.254.233): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=0 ttl=62 time=266.143 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=1 ttl=62 time=264.299 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=2 ttl=62 time=249.790 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=3 ttl=62 time=263.586 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=4 ttl=62 time=266.765 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=5 ttl=62 time=284.752 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=6 ttl=62 time=283.748 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=7 ttl=62 time=275.902 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=8 ttl=62 time=281.066 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=9 ttl=62 time=290.145 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=10 ttl=62 time=300.252 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=11 ttl=62 time=281.000 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=12 ttl=62 time=269.658 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=13 ttl=62 time=277.316 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=14 ttl=62 time=287.640 ms
64 bytes from 67.232.254.233: seq=15 ttl=62 time=279.732 ms

--- 67.232.254.233 ping statistics ---
16 packets transmitted, 16 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 249.790/276.362/300.252 ms

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
reply to Tivon
Click for full size
nil
this is all with almost nil traffic on my network;

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
reply to Tivon
hey tivon, can you post a tracert to me at niagara.sytes.net ? could be useful when i contact CL

thanks


Tivon

join:2008-10-31
Tallahassee, FL
Just got off the phone with one of their Techs. Got the normal song that everything looks fine on their end. They are sending me out another modem to replace my older 660, but for some reason I doubt it's the cause, but I can't say for sure until I get my hands on the hardware and test it in another 5+ days.

BRB with that Tracert..


Tivon

join:2008-10-31
Tallahassee, FL
reply to sinshiva
Click for full size
Click for full size
C:\Users\Jared>tracert niagara.sytes.net

Tracing route to niagara.sytes.net [67.235.210.149]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 23 ms 22 ms 23 ms fl-67-233-128-1.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [67.233.128.1
]
3 30 ms 29 ms 30 ms fl-67-235-210-149.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [67.235.210
.149]

Trace complete.

C:\Users\Jared>


----------------------------------

I'm not sure this will help right now because suddenly it's sort of working normal. However using PingPlotter it's showing some interesting latency swings..

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

4 edits
yes, my connection appears to be back to normal now, too. think it was being worked on. i'll give it another 12 hours. noon should be a good metric for whether or not the connection is fixed. how are your pings to 8.8.8.8 looking now?

btw;

ping 67.233.128.1

Pinging 67.233.128.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 67.233.128.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=254
Reply from 67.233.128.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=254
Reply from 67.233.128.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 67.233.128.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254

Ping statistics for 67.233.128.1:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 7ms, Average = 6ms

has your pings dropped to this router?

an aside, i had the 660 before. one day the upload cut in half, guess the modem was dying. however, i still had my awesome latency. they sent me out a westell 7500, which is what i have now

also, do you have your modem in bridge mode, typically? (and without PPPoE) if so, you might be interested in setting the WAN side MTU of your router to 1456; this makes me connection ridiculously responsive. if you do, it would be best if you set this on your local machines, too. only telling you since our connection is surely to be identical

windows; netsh interface ipv4 set subinterface "Local Area Connection" mtu=1456 store=persistent

or

netsh interface ipv4 set subinterface "Wireless Network Connection" mtu=1456 store=persistent

to verify i have the interface names correct, use; netsh interface ipv4 show subinterfaces

for android, i use mtuchanger; have to download this outside of the store with 'allow unknown sources' or whatever in developer options enabled

linux; ifconfig eth0 mtu 1456 up

might work for apple, if you can't do it in a GUI somewhere;

can't be manually set on the xbox 360, unfortunately, but it seems to have some path mtu capabilities; this CAN be manually set on the wii, oddly enough

i found this by speedtesting, dropping down from 1488, 2 bytes at a time; quick explanation: adsl is over ATM, which has 48 byte payloads, standard ethernet is 1500. 48x31 = 1488 for the most snug fit inside ethernet packet, however bridging encapsulation makes the effective mtu lower. unfortunately, it's too complicated to calculate, so i got it by speedtesting.

also, if you do decide to use a custom mtu, it would be best if you set this on the lan side of the router, too, as well as any other router on your lan. i recommend using a router with dd-wrt so you can add this to something like jffs (persistent storage) my main router has asuswrt-merlin, a customized version of asus official using a script that sets the mtu on all the interfaces. if you use routers that have dd-wrt installed, you can simply add it on the Command > startup page, with the following;

ifconfig eth0 mtu 1456 up
ifconfig eth1 mtu 1456 up
ifconfig vlan1 mtu 1456 up
ifconfig vlan2 mtu 1456 up
ifconfig br0 mtu 1456 up

sets it for all the interfaces, and most importantly the bridge.

anyway, this is only if you feel like playing with it, of course. everything works just fine with the standard 1500 mtu. it's just that it can be slightly improved

you can verify that 1456 is the 'perfect' mtu for us by speedtesting 1457 mtu. if you see something like 9.8mb down, then test using 1456 mtu and get something like 10.15 down, you'll know for certain that 1456 is the perfect mtu for you as well


Tivon

join:2008-10-31
Tallahassee, FL
I asked the lady if they could send me a westell. I did some reading on this once before. But she said, "they don't have control over what is being sent out to me", (did she lie?). I'll probably end up with one of those new wonky modems and then be forced to trouble/shoot again for the westell. (waste of time)

Still showing good results for my line at this moment.

One tech said I was far from the [something] once, but I get used to hearing those repeat lines that they hand out when they really mean to say, "We have no idea what is broken with your internet.." lol

-------------------

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 28ms, Maximum = 30ms, Average = 29ms

---------------------

I'm going to play some games while it's working and hit this up again later. Thanks for your help thus far, I don't feel so alone in my troubles.

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
i should have just moved everything i added in the last post to a new post lol. i have a habit of going on and on... lol

and no problem, was handy having another in the city to help with the investigation lol

sinshiva

join:2014-01-13
Tallahassee, FL
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

2 edits
reply to sinshiva
centurylink, if you'd be so kind, i'd like my connection to stay this way

admin@nerieus:/tmp/home/root# ping 8.8.8.8
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=0 ttl=48 time=14.954 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=1 ttl=48 time=14.615 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=2 ttl=48 time=14.762 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=3 ttl=48 time=14.762 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=4 ttl=48 time=14.729 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=5 ttl=48 time=14.946 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=6 ttl=48 time=14.565 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=7 ttl=48 time=14.686 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=8 ttl=48 time=14.675 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=9 ttl=48 time=14.923 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=10 ttl=48 time=14.673 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=11 ttl=48 time=14.511 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=12 ttl=48 time=14.850 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=13 ttl=48 time=14.610 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=14 ttl=48 time=14.599 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=15 ttl=48 time=14.589 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=16 ttl=48 time=14.689 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=17 ttl=48 time=14.592 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=18 ttl=48 time=14.538 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=19 ttl=48 time=14.803 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=20 ttl=48 time=14.789 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=21 ttl=48 time=14.648 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=22 ttl=48 time=14.502 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=23 ttl=48 time=14.777 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=24 ttl=48 time=14.745 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: seq=25 ttl=48 time=14.460 ms

--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
26 packets transmitted, 26 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 14.460/14.692/14.954 ms

i wish there was a way to reduce the latency between here and georgia, i feel like 8ms to googledns is nearly possible

C:\Users\renee>tracert 8.8.8.8

Tracing route to google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms NERIEUS [192.168.87.1]
2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms fl-67-235-192-1.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [67.235.192.1]
3 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms fl-67-235-246-45.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [67.235.246.45]
4 8 ms 7 ms 8 ms fl-67-232-254-233.sta.embarqhsd.net[67.232.254.233]
5 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms 208-110-248-137.centurylink.net [208.110.248.137]

I demand the laws of physics be bent between these two hops.

6 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms bb-atlngamv-jx9-01-xe-10-1-0.core.cenrurytel.net
[208.110.248.57]
7 14 ms 14 ms 14 ms 206.51.71.30
8 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms 72.14.233.56
9 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms 66.249.94.24
10 17 ms 14 ms 14 ms 209.85.243.254
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8]

Trace complete.

of course, i actually use opendns. opendns tests better than googledns for me during high traffic hours, via namebench

admin@nerieus:/tmp/home/root# ping 208.67.222.220
PING 208.67.222.220 (208.67.222.220): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 208.67.222.220: seq=0 ttl=56 time=30.070 ms
64 bytes from 208.67.222.220: seq=1 ttl=56 time=29.892 ms
64 bytes from 208.67.222.220: seq=2 ttl=56 time=29.942 ms
64 bytes from 208.67.222.220: seq=3 ttl=56 time=29.847 ms
64 bytes from 208.67.222.220: seq=4 ttl=56 time=29.353 ms
64 bytes from 208.67.222.220: seq=5 ttl=56 time=29.583 ms
64 bytes from 208.67.222.220: seq=6 ttl=56 time=29.331 ms
64 bytes from 208.67.222.220: seq=7 ttl=56 time=30.168 ms
64 bytes from 208.67.222.220: seq=8 ttl=56 time=29.800 ms
64 bytes from 208.67.222.220: seq=9 ttl=56 time=29.819 ms
64 bytes from 208.67.222.220: seq=10 ttl=56 time=30.486 ms
64 bytes from 208.67.222.220: seq=11 ttl=56 time=30.481 ms

--- 208.67.222.220 ping statistics ---
12 packets transmitted, 12 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 29.331/29.897/30.486 ms

not quite as pretty, but this is a case where ICMP is superficial