dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
4312
chaunbot
join:2004-11-25
Ventura, CA

2 edits

chaunbot

Member

High ping to ARRIS Maxx modem over cat5.

Hello,

Does anyone else ping really high to the ARRIS modem? I have it set to be a modem only not a router.
Just wondering why i ping so high to the modem (wired).

 ping 192.168.100.1
PING 192.168.100.1 (192.168.100.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=9.38 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=8.28 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=1.83 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=4.35 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=2.73 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=63 time=11.2 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=63 time=2.77 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=63 time=8.05 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=63 time=6.89 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=63 time=5.22 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=63 time=3.84 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=63 time=2.16 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=63 time=10.7 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=63 time=7.04 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=15 ttl=63 time=7.98 ms
^C
--- 192.168.100.1 ping statistics ---
15 packets transmitted, 15 received, 0% packet loss, time 14021ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.835/6.166/11.206/3.021 ms
 
 

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

mackey

Premium Member

Re: High ping to ARRIS Maxx modem?

WiFi or wired? It's not unusual for WiFi connections.

/M
chaunbot
join:2004-11-25
Ventura, CA

1 edit

chaunbot

Member

all gigabit, wireless is disabled.

Edit added that its all wired, no wireless
dropper
join:1999-12-12
Round Rock, TX

1 edit

dropper to chaunbot

Member

to chaunbot

Re: High ping to ARRIS Maxx modem over cat5.

I am seeing the same (from my router, so 1 hop):

PING 192.168.100.1 (192.168.100.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: seq=0 ttl=64 time=3.380 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: seq=1 ttl=64 time=9.776 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: seq=2 ttl=64 time=7.081 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: seq=3 ttl=64 time=5.409 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: seq=4 ttl=64 time=9.691 ms

--- 192.168.100.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 3.380/7.067/9.776 ms


It may just be the modem responding slowly.

Here is my trace to google, first hop is the modem, which doesn't respond:

traceroute to www.google.com (74.125.227.112), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 * * *
2 tge2-4.rdrktxaz01h.texas.rr.com (66.68.5.249) 11.367 ms 15.343 ms 14.954 ms
3 tge0-8-0-1.ausutxla01r.texas.rr.com (24.175.42.228) 19.739 ms 16.714 ms 16.330 ms
4 agg22.dllatxl301r.texas.rr.com (24.175.41.46) 28.020 ms 31.287 ms 23.962 ms
5 107.14.19.92 (107.14.19.92) 18.308 ms 23.346 ms 27.828 ms
6 ae1.pr1.dfw10.tbone.rr.com (107.14.17.234) 21.025 ms ae0.pr1.dfw10.tbone.rr.com (107.14.17.232) 22.306 ms 21.884 ms
7 74.125.48.65 (74.125.48.65) 24.226 ms 26.464 ms 15.153 ms
8 72.14.233.65 (72.14.233.65) 31.155 ms 27.700 ms 112.909 ms
9 209.85.240.91 (209.85.240.91) 22.631 ms 27.328 ms 30.801 ms
10 dfw06s16-in-f16.1e100.net (74.125.227.112) 25.582 ms 18.114 ms 20.683 ms
Mystic95Z
join:2005-05-10
Orlando, FL

Mystic95Z to chaunbot

Member

to chaunbot
I get 1ms to both my router and modem (connected via gigabit as well) granted I'm using a RTN16 router and not an Arris one.
XeeN
join:2001-10-15
Sunland, CA

XeeN to chaunbot

Member

to chaunbot
I also get ping times greater than 1ms when pinging my arris 1670a maxx modem. Gigabit cat6.
omghi2u
join:2001-02-05
.

omghi2u to chaunbot

Member

to chaunbot
Are you guys noticing an actual performance impact? Ping doesn't mean much these days...ICMP packets are regularly deemed lower priority if they aren't blocked entirely. If there is no issue with your service, who cares about the ping time to your modem?
XeeN
join:2001-10-15
Sunland, CA

XeeN

Member

said by omghi2u:

Are you guys noticing an actual performance impact? Ping doesn't mean much these days...ICMP packets are regularly deemed lower priority if they aren't blocked entirely. If there is no issue with your service, who cares about the ping time to your modem?

Someone would have to provision two modems and do a side by side test to see if there's an actual 5+ms delay being added in the modem for every packet.

But over your LAN, it doesn't matter if there was an actual QoS rule because there shouldn't be any reason to have a delay on the acknowledge packet when there are zero hops between you and that point.

Beyond that, the Arris 1670 has enough issues to make people press a bit more when they see stuff like this happen.
chaunbot
join:2004-11-25
Ventura, CA

chaunbot to omghi2u

Member

to omghi2u
I was having disconnect issues with my first modem so TWC gave me another. The disconnect issues are gone now but the high ping stayed.

I'm curious why there would be any QOS on ICMP if the modem is not in routing mode.

I'm a gamer so ping matters. I've noticed with the 107* block of ip's TWC is handing out takes completely different routes vs the 98.154 ip i currently have.

I had to spoof the MAC address of my old router to keep the 98* ip. I've also notice drastic speed/routing differences with ipv6 vs ipv4 even though they should all pass the same switches.

When TWC was handing out the 107 ip's i couldn't even do speed tests on TWC's site as they didn't add that range to the allowed list on apache.

I'm completely happy with the MAXX 300 but there are still some lingering issues that I was wondering if anyone else had them.
omghi2u
join:2001-02-05
.

omghi2u

Member

said by chaunbot:

I was having disconnect issues with my first modem so TWC gave me another. The disconnect issues are gone now but the high ping stayed.

I'm curious why there would be any QOS on ICMP if the modem is not in routing mode.

I'm a gamer so ping matters. I've noticed with the 107* block of ip's TWC is handing out takes completely different routes vs the 98.154 ip i currently have.

I had to spoof the MAC address of my old router to keep the 98* ip. I've also notice drastic speed/routing differences with ipv6 vs ipv4 even though they should all pass the same switches.

When TWC was handing out the 107 ip's i couldn't even do speed tests on TWC's site as they didn't add that range to the allowed list on apache.

I'm completely happy with the MAXX 300 but there are still some lingering issues that I was wondering if anyone else had them.

Man you are talking about a lot of random things here.

What ping do you get when connected directly to the modem with no routers/switches and a patch cable?

QOS is only there if you set it on the router. Most network devices are pre-set to treat ICMP as a lower priority. Its natural to get a lower ping when pinging. Focus more on your route and pings to external servers.

Undo the MAC spoofing you did. Try factory resetting your router and seeing what results you get.
chaunbot
join:2004-11-25
Ventura, CA

chaunbot

Member

This is from Pfsense to modem.

Ping output:
PING 192.168.100.1 (192.168.100.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=3.693 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=18.416 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=3.454 ms

--- 192.168.100.1 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 3.454/8.521/18.416/6.998 ms

Pfsense is running on a miniITX PC.

I changed the MAC when i was testing and the way it is now is ideal to the servers i play in.

This is a new router build as my last could only handle 100mbit.

As my router shows, it pings the TWC gateway better ipv6 vs ipv4.

Name
RTT Loss Status
WAN_DHCP
98.154.
17ms 4%
Online
WAN_DHCP6
fe80::201:5cff:fe67:
12.7ms 2%
Online

I have no QOS setup on my router or the modem so i don't see why the modem would be doing QOS as its setup in bridged mode.

Hopefully they come out with a standalone modem so i can return this space heater known as ARRIS
omghi2u
join:2001-02-05
.

omghi2u

Member

said by chaunbot:

This is from Pfsense to modem.

Ping output:
PING 192.168.100.1 (192.168.100.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=3.693 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=18.416 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=3.454 ms

--- 192.168.100.1 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 3.454/8.521/18.416/6.998 ms

Pfsense is running on a miniITX PC.

I changed the MAC when i was testing and the way it is now is ideal to the servers i play in.

This is a new router build as my last could only handle 100mbit.

As my router shows, it pings the TWC gateway better ipv6 vs ipv4.

Name
RTT Loss Status
WAN_DHCP
98.154.
17ms 4%
Online
WAN_DHCP6
fe80::201:5cff:fe67:
12.7ms 2%
Online

I have no QOS setup on my router or the modem so i don't see why the modem would be doing QOS as its setup in bridged mode.

Hopefully they come out with a standalone modem so i can return this space heater known as ARRIS

You aren't providing info that would be most helpful including traceroutes and pings to external servers. Also, skip the pfsense and plug your PC directly into the modem using a short patch cable. Don't do anything funky such as MAC cloning. Share the results here.
XeeN
join:2001-10-15
Sunland, CA

XeeN

Member

said by omghi2u:

You aren't providing info that would be most helpful including traceroutes and pings to external servers. Also, skip the pfsense and plug your PC directly into the modem using a short patch cable. Don't do anything funky such as MAC cloning. Share the results here.

hytekj, I don't think you'll be able to help. We're seeing something that's a new issue with anyone who has this modem. I don't think there's any conclusion other than to get an Arris support tech or engineer's response on it. I think you're viewing it from the angle of standard troubleshooting, but this is just the way things appear to work with this modem.

Everyone posting here is basically reporting the same thing, although some do have a router in between their modem and PC. Still, even when we directly connect a cable from a pc to a modem, the ping times are higher than they should be.

As long as we can verify that the ping times aren't being added to our overall latency to destination servers, we'll be at least okay with letting it be for now.
omghi2u
join:2001-02-05
.

omghi2u

Member

said by XeeN:

said by omghi2u:

You aren't providing info that would be most helpful including traceroutes and pings to external servers. Also, skip the pfsense and plug your PC directly into the modem using a short patch cable. Don't do anything funky such as MAC cloning. Share the results here.

hytekj, I don't think you'll be able to help. We're seeing something that's a new issue with anyone who has this modem. I don't think there's any conclusion other than to get an Arris support tech or engineer's response on it. I think you're viewing it from the angle of standard troubleshooting, but this is just the way things appear to work with this modem.

Everyone posting here is basically reporting the same thing, although some do have a router in between their modem and PC. Still, even when we directly connect a cable from a pc to a modem, the ping times are higher than they should be.

As long as we can verify that the ping times aren't being added to our overall latency to destination servers, we'll be at least okay with letting it be for now.

I am able to help by pointing out that if you are able to verify the ping times aren't being added to overall latency to destination servers, you have no true issue.
XeeN
join:2001-10-15
Sunland, CA

XeeN

Member

said by omghi2u:

I am able to help by pointing out that if you are able to verify the ping times aren't being added to overall latency to destination servers, you have no true issue.

lol k thx
chaunbot
join:2004-11-25
Ventura, CA

chaunbot

Member

so i ran MTR form my server to home and home to server

server to home (MAXX)

HOST: server Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
1.|-- ip-64-90-56-3.dream 0.0% 10 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.1
2.|-- ip-64-90-32-79.dream 0.0% 10 0.2 2.8 0.2 23.5 7.3
3.|-- xe-0-3-0.mpr1.lax103.us.a 0.0% 10 0.3 7.0 0.3 67.0 21.1
4.|-- xe-1-2-0.mpr1.lax12.us.ab 0.0% 10 7.5 8.1 1.2 13.1 4.2
5.|-- fxp2.r0.mia95.adelphiacom 0.0% 10 6.6 4.2 1.2 25.0 7.5
6.|-- 107.14.19.55 0.0% 10 6.3 4.3 2.6 6.3 1.3
7.|-- 107.14.17.135 0.0% 10 6.2 4.4 2.7 6.2 1.4
8.|-- agg1.vnnycajz02r.socal.rr 0.0% 10 7.9 7.9 6.3 9.6 1.0
9.|-- agg1.vntrcamv02h.socal.rr 0.0% 10 6.8 6.9 6.7 7.1 0.1
10.|-- 76.167.29.214 0.0% 10 6.7 6.1 6.0 6.7 0.2
11.|-- cpe-98-154- .socal. 0.0% 10 33.1 21.3 16.2 33.1 5.2
~$

home to server

mtr --report 64.9
Start: Tue Jul 29 18:05:55 2014
HOST: router Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
1.|-- pfsense.org 0.0% 10 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0
2.|-- cpe-98-154-192-1.socal.re 0.0% 10 11.3 15.2 8.9 23.4 4.5
3.|-- 76.167.29.209 0.0% 10 15.5 12.8 9.3 18.7 3.3
4.|-- agg21.vnnycajz01r.socal.r 0.0% 10 27.4 20.7 16.2 27.4 3.6
5.|-- agg29.lsancarc01r.socal.r 0.0% 10 15.1 17.6 13.5 23.9 3.4
6.|-- 107.14.19.32 0.0% 10 20.7 20.4 14.7 25.1 3.5
7.|-- ae0.pr1.lax10.tbone.rr.co 0.0% 10 15.6 17.0 13.5 19.6 2.0
8.|-- te0-0-0-29.ccr23.lax05.at 0.0% 10 16.1 19.0 14.2 23.0 3.4
9.|-- be2181.mpd21.lax01.atlas. 0.0% 10 20.0 19.0 14.4 24.0 3.2
10.|-- te4-2.ccr01.sna02.atlas.c 0.0% 10 22.9 68.4 16.1 211.7 69.3
11.|-- te4-1.ccr01.sna03.atlas.c 10.0% 10 14.2 19.8 14.2 23.8 3.4
12.|-- te0-0-1-0.nr11.b033451-0. 0.0% 10 21.9 20.8 16.6 25.2 2.7
13.|-- 38.104.210.174 0.0% 10 22.8 20.6 14.4 32.5 5.3
14.|-- ip-64-90-32-72.dream . 0.0% 10 34.4 21.9 17.5 34.4 5.1
15.|-- server.dream 0.0% 10 19.5 23.0 14.9 42.4 8.4

6 ping to hop 10 and 33 ping to final hop 11.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx

Premium Member

It seems like the latency is getting added to all traffic. I used to see a consistent 7-9ms to the first external hop, now I see something that varies from 11-22ms.

Pinging 76.174.224.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=63
Reply from 76.174.224.1: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=63
 
chaunbot
join:2004-11-25
Ventura, CA

chaunbot

Member

PING 98.154.192.1 (98.154.192.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=15.1 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=13.7 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=13.3 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=10.7 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=9.89 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=63 time=25.0 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=63 time=16.5 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=63 time=14.1 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=63 time=13.1 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=63 time=21.7 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=63 time=10.6 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=63 time=18.5 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=63 time=16.7 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=63 time=14.9 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=15 ttl=63 time=10.3 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=16 ttl=63 time=12.5 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=17 ttl=63 time=10.6 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=18 ttl=63 time=9.86 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=19 ttl=63 time=17.3 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=20 ttl=63 time=9.72 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=21 ttl=63 time=9.65 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=22 ttl=63 time=10.7 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=23 ttl=63 time=11.6 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=24 ttl=63 time=13.5 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=25 ttl=63 time=21.7 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=26 ttl=63 time=15.7 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=27 ttl=63 time=14.9 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=28 ttl=63 time=12.6 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=29 ttl=63 time=11.3 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=30 ttl=63 time=10.4 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=31 ttl=63 time=26.1 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=32 ttl=63 time=9.68 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=33 ttl=63 time=15.6 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=34 ttl=63 time=13.5 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=35 ttl=63 time=28.4 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=36 ttl=63 time=10.7 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=37 ttl=63 time=17.0 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=38 ttl=63 time=17.2 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=39 ttl=63 time=16.2 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=40 ttl=63 time=14.7 ms
64 bytes from 98.154.192.1: icmp_seq=41 ttl=63 time=13.1 ms
^C
--- 98.154.192.1 ping statistics ---
41 packets transmitted, 41 received, 0% packet loss, time 40062ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 9.655/14.636/28.475/4.557 ms
Megabauds
join:2014-04-23
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

Megabauds to chaunbot

Member

to chaunbot
said by chaunbot:

Does anyone else ping really high to the ARRIS modem? I have it set to be a modem only not a router.

I see this too. 100 pings to the default gateway over the cable modem:

SB6121, min/avg/max = 7.374/11.788/16.982 ms

DG1670 routed, min/avg/max = 14.170/27.859/124.334 ms

DG1670 bridged, min/avg/max = 8.955/20.904/109.698 ms

And pinging the DG1670's ip locally from a gigabit wired connection: min/avg/max = 1.014/6.555/64.325 ms

This looks like it uses a 100hz(10ms) interrupt coalesce and occasionally blocks for more than 50ms.

Looking at how this affects an application, I used the round trip times recorded by ntp:

»i.imgur.com/SuMFmeo.png

Each different test was run for more than 11 hours to try and catch both busy and off peak periods. The ntp client is configured to poll this server every 64 seconds. The SB6121 had the lowest average latency at 60 ms. The DG2670 bridged mode had an average round trip latency of 65ms, which is in line with a 100hz coalesce (on average, you'll have to wait half the time period or 5ms).

Overall, it's not a big difference for me. I am curious to see how the SB6183 compares.
bodosom
Leger de main
Premium Member
join:2004-03-05
WNY/Niagara
ARRIS SB6183
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X
pfSense SG-2220

bodosom

Premium Member

said by Megabauds:

Overall, it's not a big difference for me. I am curious to see how the SB6183 compares.

Not quite apples to apples but from my gateway to a 6183:
# ping -f -c5000 192.168.100.1
--- 192.168.100.1 ping statistics ---
5000 packets transmitted, 4816 received, 3% packet loss, time 4407ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.264/0.349/0.891/0.038 ms

First hop:
# ping -f -c 100 66.66.112.1
PING 66.66.112.1 (66.66.112.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
--- 66.66.112.1 ping statistics ---
100 packets transmitted, 100 received, 0% packet loss, time 741ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 6.560/7.665/30.408/2.683 ms