dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1375
share rss forum feed


20424689

join:2014-04-08

4 edits

having some problems

ok so i decided to ping google a second ago when i was gonna do a little test on my connection. noticed it was taking over 100ms or around that. thought it was odd. so i pinged my default gateway (cmts) and response times were fine

ping 174.7.244.1 -t

Pinging 174.7.244.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 174.7.244.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 174.7.244.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 174.7.244.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 174.7.244.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 174.7.244.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 174.7.244.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 174.7.244.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254

Ping statistics for 174.7.244.1:
Packets: Sent = 7, Received = 7, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 7ms, Maximum = 9ms, Average = 7ms

ping google.com -t

Pinging google.com [173.194.33.0] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 173.194.33.0:
Packets: Sent = 11, Received = 11, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 49ms, Maximum = 123ms, Average = 83ms

ping google.com -t

Pinging google.com [173.194.33.0] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.0: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 173.194.33.0:
Packets: Sent = 9, Received = 9, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 63ms, Maximum = 153ms, Average = 105ms

ping google.com -t

Pinging google.com [173.194.33.6] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 173.194.33.6:
Packets: Sent = 13, Received = 13, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 55ms, Maximum = 151ms, Average = 103ms
Control-C

so i ran a traceroute, and immediately i noticed the problem was within shaws network. the hop that goes from vancouver to washington, is having issues or is massively congested.

tracert google.com

Tracing route to google.com [173.194.33.6]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 10 ms 23 ms 11 ms rd3bb-tge0-8-0-0-7.vc.shawcable.net [64.59.156.2
43]
4 19 ms 19 ms 13 ms 66.163.68.250
5 16 ms 11 ms 11 ms 66.163.65.150
6 98 ms 98 ms 96 ms rc6wt-pos0-8-1-0.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.76.130
]
7 44 ms 42 ms 42 ms 72.14.216.66
8 134 ms 126 ms 127 ms 209.85.249.32
9 60 ms 56 ms 58 ms 209.85.253.24
10 64 ms 60 ms 60 ms sea09s01-in-f6.1e100.net [173.194.33.6]

Trace complete.

then i tested to a gameserver that i know is in california to make sure it wasnt just only some of my westcoast traffic having this issue...

tracert 108.61.235.105

Tracing route to 108.61.235.105.choopa.net [108.61.235.105]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms rd3bb-tge0-8-0-0-7.vc.shawcable.net [64.59.156.2
43]
4 12 ms 17 ms 10 ms 66.163.65.174
5 21 ms 11 ms 11 ms rc2wh-tge0-6-0-10.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.18
2]
6 99 ms 96 ms 94 ms rc6wt-pos0-8-1-0.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.76.130
]
7 150 ms 150 ms 142 ms rc5wt-tge0-10-0-14.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.68.8
1]
8 118 ms 126 ms 126 ms sea-b1-link.telia.net [62.115.12.73]
9 118 ms 114 ms 115 ms level3-ic-304311-sea-b1.c.telia.net [62.115.37.1
18]
10 69 ms 76 ms 76 ms ae-31-51.ebr1.Seattle1.Level3.net [4.69.147.150]

11 81 ms 81 ms 82 ms ae-7-7.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.69.132.49]
12 109 ms 105 ms 101 ms ae-92-92.csw4.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.69.153.30]

13 * 109 ms 109 ms ae-4-90.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.69.152.212]

14 75 ms 78 ms 79 ms CHOOPA-LLC.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.30.150.8
6]
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * * * Request timed out.
19 * * * Request timed out.
20 * * * Request timed out.
21 * * * Request timed out.
22 * * * Request timed out.
23 * * * Request timed out.
24 * * * Request timed out.
25 * * * Request timed out.
26 * * * Request timed out.
27 71 ms 72 ms 81 ms 108.61.235.105.choopa.net [108.61.235.105]

Trace complete.

for comparison this is what that connection should look like/ looked like the other day

tracert 108.61.235.105

Tracing route to 108.61.235.105.choopa.net [108.61.235.105]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 10 ms 15 ms 15 ms rd3bb-tge0-8-0-0-7.vc.shawcable.net [64.59.156.2
43]
4 19 ms 13 ms 21 ms rc2bb-tge0-5-0-2.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.68.201
]
5 17 ms 19 ms 19 ms rc5wt-pos0-1-1-0.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.76.142
]
6 15 ms 17 ms 15 ms sea-b1-link.telia.net [62.115.12.73]
7 15 ms 17 ms 15 ms level3-ic-304311-sea-b1.c.telia.net [62.115.37.1
18]
8 31 ms 33 ms 33 ms ae-31-51.ebr1.Seattle1.Level3.net [4.69.147.150]

9 41 ms 37 ms 37 ms ae-7-7.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.69.132.49]
10 34 ms 32 ms 33 ms ae-92-92.csw4.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.69.153.30]

11 40 ms 69 ms 32 ms ae-4-90.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.69.152.212]

12 36 ms 32 ms 33 ms CHOOPA-LLC.edge8.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.30.150.8
6]
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * * * Request timed out.
19 * * * Request timed out.
20 * * * Request timed out.
21 * * * Request timed out.
22 * * * Request timed out.
23 * * * Request timed out.
24 * * * Request timed out.
25 34 ms 34 ms 38 ms 108.61.235.105.choopa.net [108.61.235.105]

Trace complete.


kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3

1 edit

Looks like could be an issue in the rc_wt location

But hardly having an 'problem'



20424689

join:2014-04-08

if im trying to host when playing with users in california, washington, and orgegon, aswell as playing on dedicated servers in cali. it is a problem, my response time is doubled and i might aswell switch to telus if it stays like this


ravenchilde

join:2011-04-01
kudos:2
reply to kevinds

The lower pings of the hops after the WA-WT hops in Telia indicate that no issue exists on the WA-WT routers.

Remember that Cisco routers respond to a UDP or ICMP packet TTL expiration by sending the packet to the CPU for processing. The CPU may have other tasks and take extra time to respond. If a later hop responds faster, the traffic has passed through that hop, so you'd be breaking physics by suggesting latency actually exists at that router interface and it wasn't just an artifact of Cisco router TTL response. You can't take twice as long to get to Seattle as you do to get to San Jose many hops later, due to causality (though I'm not an expert in physics). Keep in mind Shaw does not employ quantum teleportation of information.

Citing what I mean as people often don't believe me:
»www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog45/p···_N45.pdf

Read the slides on pages:
29 - To It vs Through It
31 - Rate Limited ICMP generation
32 - Spotting the fake latency

"Latency spikes in the middle of a traceroute mean absolutely nothing if they do not continue forward.
- At worst it could be the result of an asymmetric path.
- But it is probably an artificial rate-limit or prioritization issue."

So in my professional opinion: There is no actual latency between Vancouver and Washington, or the two Washington routers.


ravenchilde

join:2011-04-01
kudos:2

Keep in mind I'm not suggesting there isn't an issue, just stating that it isn't the hops you think it is.

I don't see any massive latency on your traceroutes (or any indication of a problem), but a program like PingPlotter, WinMTR, or pathping that runs more than 3 pings per path hop would provide a lot more information. Run one of those for a few hundred samples and post the result.

I suggest you ensure:
- No App or Device on your network is uploading

Although buffer bloat should show when you ping the CMTS.

Try running the ICSI Netalyzr


kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3

*doh and I know better than that too... lol


ravenchilde

join:2011-04-01
kudos:2

I got you this time Kev


kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3

Yeah, had a few *facepalm* moments this week already... haha



20424689

join:2014-04-08

google is now behaving normally.

And there was also a period about half hour ago when i checked and it was like half 40ms responses half 15ms like normal

C:\Users\Connor>ping google.com -t

Pinging google.com [173.194.33.6] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.6: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 173.194.33.6:
Packets: Sent = 9, Received = 9, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 21ms, Average = 15ms

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Connor>ping google.com -t

Pinging google.com [173.194.33.3] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=56
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=55
Reply from 173.194.33.3: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 173.194.33.3:
Packets: Sent = 17, Received = 17, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 51ms, Average = 35ms
Control-C



20424689

join:2014-04-08

3 edits
reply to ravenchilde

said by ravenchilde:

The lower pings of the hops after the WA-WT hops in Telia indicate that no issue exists on the WA-WT routers.

to put it simply. those pings were not recorded when i was having the issues, i put that trace-route in there to show what my connection was like when it was working

lol the one trace route u referred to saying there was no problem was the one trace route i had posted from previously when my internet was working good lol

i posted 2 traceroutes to the same location, one i had open from a sever i was testing last night, earlier there were no "lower pings" to the hops immediately after it had gone to washington

this is how it was earlier

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms rd3bb-tge0-8-0-0-7.vc.shawcable.net [64.59.156.2
43]
4 12 ms 17 ms 10 ms 66.163.65.174
5 21 ms 11 ms 11 ms rc2wh-tge0-6-0-10.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.18
2]
6 99 ms 96 ms 94 ms rc6wt-pos0-8-1-0.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.76.130
]
7 150 ms 150 ms 142 ms rc5wt-tge0-10-0-14.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.68.8
1]
8 118 ms 126 ms 126 ms sea-b1-link.telia.net [62.115.12.73]
9 118 ms 114 ms 115 ms level3-ic-304311-sea-b1.c.telia.net [62.115.37.1

and this is how it was when it was working good days ago

Tracing route to 108.61.235.105.choopa.net [108.61.235.105]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 10 ms 15 ms 15 ms rd3bb-tge0-8-0-0-7.vc.shawcable.net [64.59.156.2
43]
4 19 ms 13 ms 21 ms rc2bb-tge0-5-0-2.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.68.201
]
5 17 ms 19 ms 19 ms rc5wt-pos0-1-1-0.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.76.142
]
6 15 ms 17 ms 15 ms sea-b1-link.telia.net [62.115.12.73]
7 15 ms 17 ms 15 ms level3-ic-304311-sea-b1.c.telia.net [62.115.37.1

i undertstand why you thought the issues were not caused by shaw, but the last traceroute i intially posted WAS NOT RECORDED EARLIER WHEN I WAS HAVING PROBLEMS, IT WAS RECORDED LAST NIGHT


20424689

join:2014-04-08

just to show more detail about this issue, here is hop that i was monitoring the entire time i was having this issue (thanks to my lovely ripe atlas probe) first, here is a current traceroute the ip to show it is in california and my connection is good

tracert 128.63.2.53

Tracing route to h.root-servers.net [128.63.2.53]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 11 ms 10 ms 11 ms rd3bb-tge0-8-0-0-7.vc.shawcable.net [64.59.156.2
43]
4 15 ms 17 ms 11 ms rc2bb-tge0-13-0-10.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.1
41]
5 18 ms 12 ms 11 ms rc2wh-tge0-6-0-2.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.170
]
6 22 ms 15 ms 15 ms 66.163.68.106
7 17 ms 16 ms 18 ms rc5wt-tge0-15-0-0.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.68.45
]
8 13 ms 13 ms 71 ms sea-b1-link.telia.net [62.115.12.73]
9 15 ms 13 ms 13 ms qwest-ic-154239-sea-b1.c.telia.net [80.239.194.3
0]
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 46 ms 49 ms 45 ms 65-126-18-214.dia.static.qwest.net [65.126.18.21
4]
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 45 ms 43 ms 51 ms int-1-1-1-nd.level3-lax.core.dren.net [140.6.244
.1]
14 51 ms 48 ms 50 ms np-5-1-1-nd.sandiego.core.dren.net [140.6.0.1]
15 46 ms 48 ms 48 ms 138.18.190.89
16 47 ms 47 ms 47 ms 138.18.190.114
17 46 ms 49 ms 52 ms h.root-servers.net [128.63.2.53]

Trace complete.

and sadly i cannot link you guys the photo but i can printscreen it and show you

the times on this graph are 7 hours ahead so it shows that my ping dramatically increased to california servers from 7PM-11PM PST




sgfvdxvwares

@70.77.64.x
reply to kevinds

Shaw is having issues everywhere right now

Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=46
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=45
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=190ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=198ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=48
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=48
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=48
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=48
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=46
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=208ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=48
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=46
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=48
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=48
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=48

Tracing route to 8.8.8.8 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 10 ms 20 ms 7 ms 70.77.64.1
3 29 ms 18 ms 14 ms 64.59.171.57
4 30 ms 22 ms 35 ms 66.163.76.26
5 88 ms 88 ms 83 ms 66.163.77.62
6 71 ms 67 ms 66 ms 72.14.214.53
7 190 ms 192 ms 192 ms 209.85.249.32
8 182 ms 180 ms 174 ms 66.249.94.199
9 195 ms 203 ms 209 ms 216.239.46.200
10 181 ms 199 ms 194 ms 64.233.174.129
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 104 ms 104 ms 177 ms 8.8.8.8


ravenchilde

join:2011-04-01
kudos:2

1 edit

edit: looks like my results were just the result of another busy device on wifi... should know better.



Shaw User

@70.78.72.x

I'm getting dropouts here too

C:\Windows\system32>ping -t 8.8.8.8

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=46
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=46
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=46
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=46
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=46
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=47
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=46
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=45
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=46
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=47
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=46
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=46
Request timed out.
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
Packets: Sent = 37, Received = 24, Lost = 13 (35% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 20ms
Control-C
^C
C:\Windows\system32>



20424689

join:2014-04-08

this looks like a routing issue? loop? this is a server used for my atlas ripe probe measurements, it was working fine untill today. normally i have 10ms average to this server so its definitely close.

ping 199.7.83.42 -t

Pinging 199.7.83.42 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 64.251.87.210: TTL expired in transit.
Reply from 64.251.87.210: TTL expired in transit.
Reply from 64.251.87.210: TTL expired in transit.

Ping statistics for 199.7.83.42:
Packets: Sent = 3, Received = 3, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Control-C
^C
C:\Users\Connor>tracert 199.7.83.42

Tracing route to l.root-servers.net [199.7.83.42]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms rd3bb-tge0-8-0-0-7.vc.shawcable.net [64.59.156.2
43]
4 15 ms 14 ms 17 ms rc2bb-tge0-13-0-4.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.81
]
5 25 ms 14 ms 15 ms ra2wh-tge1-1.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.190]
6 11 ms 10 ms 12 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
7 10 ms 9 ms 11 ms ra2wh-ge4-2-1.vc.bigpipeinc.com.87.251.64.in-add
r.arpa [64.251.87.209]
8 12 ms 11 ms 10 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
9 12 ms 10 ms 11 ms ra2wh-ge4-2-1.vc.bigpipeinc.com.87.251.64.in-add
r.arpa [64.251.87.209]
10 10 ms 11 ms 10 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
11 11 ms 10 ms 11 ms ra2wh-ge4-2-1.vc.bigpipeinc.com.87.251.64.in-add
r.arpa [64.251.87.209]
12 10 ms 11 ms 11 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
13 37 ms 202 ms 206 ms ra2wh-ge4-2-1.vc.bigpipeinc.com.87.251.64.in-add
r.arpa [64.251.87.209]
14 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
15 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms ra2wh-ge4-2-1.vc.bigpipeinc.com.87.251.64.in-add
r.arpa [64.251.87.209]
16 10 ms 9 ms 12 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
17 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms ra2wh-ge4-2-1.vc.bigpipeinc.com.87.251.64.in-add
r.arpa [64.251.87.209]
18 11 ms 10 ms 11 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
19 14 ms 15 ms 17 ms ra2wh-ge4-2-1.vc.bigpipeinc.com.87.251.64.in-add
r.arpa [64.251.87.209]
20 14 ms 21 ms 11 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
21 13 ms 12 ms 10 ms ra2wh-ge4-2-1.vc.bigpipeinc.com.87.251.64.in-add
r.arpa [64.251.87.209]
22 11 ms 10 ms 12 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
23 11 ms 11 ms 12 ms ra2wh-ge4-2-1.vc.bigpipeinc.com.87.251.64.in-add
r.arpa [64.251.87.209]
24 15 ms 16 ms 17 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
25 12 ms 13 ms 15 ms ra2wh-ge4-2-1.vc.bigpipeinc.com.87.251.64.in-add
r.arpa [64.251.87.209]
26 10 ms 10 ms 12 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
27 10 ms 13 ms 11 ms ra2wh-ge4-2-1.vc.bigpipeinc.com.87.251.64.in-add
r.arpa [64.251.87.209]
28 10 ms 11 ms 9 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
29 10 ms 13 ms 11 ms ra2wh-ge4-2-1.vc.bigpipeinc.com.87.251.64.in-add
r.arpa [64.251.87.209]
30 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]

Trace complete.


kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3

That is a routing loops... Maybe Alex or Sean can send it to network operations?
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.



20424689

join:2014-04-08

shaw just made me email it to them, then they called me back saying it wasnt a loop

they said " its not a routing loop" may we ask what you are trying to do when this occurs.

im like it doesnt matter what im trying to do, its a routing loop, and there like "oh well our employee's have decided its not"

lol im waiting on hold to talk to whoever said its not a routing loop


kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Shaw

Yeah, I let Shaw know, they confirmed, and sent it to the NOC to be fixed.

You reported it about 20 minutes after a fiber-cut in that area, so it looks like the cut, caused the issue to show - so they will fix it
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.



20424689

join:2014-04-08

2 edits

it was out for numerous hours before i reported it........ the problem intitially started just after 4AM PST on the 13th (this graph picture is 7 hours ahead of PST)




shaw also seemed like they had the right to ask me why i needed to connect there and as if my response mattered. isnt it there job to fix stuff like this regardless?


The E
Please allow me to retort
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Burnaby, BC
reply to 20424689

Just to confirm what kevinds said, there was a Fibre Cut/theft that occurred between Burnaby and Bellingham. This caused many issues.



20424689

join:2014-04-08

im aware. but that cut was last night not 2 nights ago. my internet has been out since 4am on the 13th. it will be 2 days ago at 4am in 3.5 hours.

the shaw fiber cut happened about 18-22 hours ago at this point if i remember correctly

its possible there related, but i doubt it.



20424689

join:2014-04-08

1 edit
reply to The E

do people really steal fiber? i know they like stealing copper? but is fiber really worth something to them? how much was stolen if it was a theft?


kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3

Routing loop should be fixed now.

I'll confirm when I get back to my computer though
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.



20424689

join:2014-04-08

its fixed. but now its going to a different instance of the L root server. before it was going to a location in vancouver ( there are 2 root servers in vancouver, L and J.)

when i got up the routing was fixed, but my ping to the server went from 10ms to over 100ms

tracert 199.7.83.42

Tracing route to l.root-servers.net [199.7.83.42]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 10 ms 11 ms 9 ms rd3bb-tge0-8-0-0-7.vc.shawcable.net [64.59.156.2
43]
4 13 ms 11 ms 15 ms rc2bb-tge0-4-0-5.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.33]

5 11 ms 11 ms 17 ms rc2wh-tge0-0-1-0.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.65]

6 33 ms 36 ms 35 ms g1-2.br1.stc.terremark.net [198.32.176.45]
7 108 ms 106 ms 108 ms po14.br1.mia.terremark.net [66.165.160.225]
8 103 ms 114 ms 104 ms t8-1.gw1.mia.terremark.net [66.165.161.82]
9 102 ms 103 ms 103 ms l.root-servers.net [199.7.83.42]

Trace complete.

it might technically be fixed but its not fixed the way it should have been IMO, this could theoretically add 90ms to some of my DNS lookups


tlhIngan

join:2002-07-08
Richmond, BC
kudos:1
reply to 20424689

said by 20424689:

do people really steal fiber? i know they like stealing copper? but is fiber really worth something to them? how much was stolen if it was a theft?

Only by accident. They cut a length of cable assuming it's copper and take it away.

Fiber is worthless - it's just plastic that costs very little (if it cost a lot, your blue box would be mined).

Cable thieves are very stupid There are reports of many of them dying because they try to steal live power cable and get electrocuted in the process.

The family of a particularly bright thief tried to sue a power company after said thief tried to steal a powered transformer and electrocuted himself. The court ruled that since said transformers was clearly marked as being dangerous and clearly was not engaged in legitimate activities (he was well deep into the transformer, having defeated many security locks), the power company was not negligent for the death.

And because all the easy low voltage copper is being replaced with fiber, well, it leaves all the nice high voltage ones to electrocute thieves.

kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Shaw

I've seen fiber cables marked as fiber, 'contains no copper'... To try and prevent thieves from cutting it...

You have to have some good fiber skills, to put new ends on fiber cables, short lengths of cut fiber are worthless
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.


tlhIngan

join:2002-07-08
Richmond, BC
kudos:1

said by kevinds:

I've seen fiber cables marked as fiber, 'contains no copper'... To try and prevent thieves from cutting it...

You have to have some good fiber skills, to put new ends on fiber cables, short lengths of cut fiber are worthless

Those assume the thief reads the cable. Given it normally happens in the dark, well, they aren't going to see it. Just chop it and run.

The thieves who steal copper by ripping it off lines aren't the smartest people in the world. The first time they'll know about it is when the recycler points out that it's worthless plastic and glass.

The smarter ones would cut it, see no copper and leave. Still have a cut cable in the end, though.

And no, the fiber is not taken because it was fiber. It was taken (or just cut and left) because the thief thought it contained copper. They're not stealing it for the fiber, period. Fiber is cheap and used cut up fiber is pretty much worthless as there's no demand - it's so cheap people just buy brand new rolls where they can verify it works, rather than try to fix up a "pre owned" length that might be beat up in the middle and erratic.


20424689

join:2014-04-08

1 edit
reply to 20424689

now the issue has been officially resolved

C:\Users\Connor>tracert 199.7.83.42

Tracing route to l.root-servers.net [199.7.83.42]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms rd3bb-tge0-8-0-0-7.vc.shawcable.net [64.59.156.2
43]
4 17 ms 10 ms 19 ms rc2bb-tge0-13-0-4.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.81
]
5 12 ms 12 ms 11 ms ra2wh-tge1-1.vc.shawcable.net [66.163.69.190]
6 10 ms 11 ms 14 ms rx0wh-bcnet.vc.bigpipeinc.com [64.251.87.210]
7 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms cr1-tx3920.vantx1.BC.net [207.23.253.33]
8 10 ms 11 ms 11 ms CU-ALL-TX-cr1.vncv1.BC.net [207.23.240.28]
9 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms l.root-servers.net [199.7.83.42]

Trace complete.