dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
577

fess
Central Pa
join:2003-10-17
Williamsport, PA

fess

Member

CO Congestion, Latency & Packet-loss

Hi Nick,

I've been experiencing increasing amounts of latency & packet-loss to the point that VOIP no longer works due to excessive jitter, I cannot VPN into work because of the latency and I cannot stay connected to online game servers because of latency & packet-loss. So I guess you can say the connection is pretty much worthless for anything else but browsing.

I have two 3meg lines. One through Verizon directly and a second through you. Both of them suffer this exact same issue so I am thinking there is a router at the CO being flooded or inadequate back-hual since downstream throughput sits at less than a meg even though my modems are synced up at 3. Upstream seems unaffected.

I've already opened a ticket with Verzion on January 25th but thought maybe having you guys complaining with me would put things in high gear. It has been a week now without results and I am beginning to get frustrated.

Below is a snip-it of a ping to the gateway at the CO over your connection. This hop should sit about 35ms or so since my lines are Interleaved.

Request timed out.
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=315ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=317ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=343ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=285ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=308ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=337ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=217ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=212ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=317ms TTL=126
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=285ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=287ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=253ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=325ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=313ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=224ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=249ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=332ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=231ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=245ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=297ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=291ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=295ms TTL=126
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=235ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=292ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=339ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=292ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=246ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=308ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=314ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=332ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=303ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=328ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=315ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=318ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=330ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=302ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=263ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=254ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=319ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=334ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=289ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=188ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=312ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=316ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=126
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=314ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=214ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=291ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=231ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=329ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=229ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=302ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=339ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=254ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=310ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=328ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=250ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=290ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=213ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=295ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=341ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=243ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=258ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=337ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=285ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=244ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=228ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=291ms TTL=126
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=322ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=309ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=334ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=343ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=289ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=312ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=244ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=335ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=253ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=223ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=292ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=258ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=300ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=190ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=301ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=309ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=316ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=298ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=233ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=303ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=337ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=299ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=207ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=241ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=323ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=216ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=239ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=296ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=303ms TTL=126
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=309ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=197ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=337ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=252ms TTL=126

Ping statistics for 10.29.15.1:
Packets: Sent = 229, Received = 222, Lost = 7 (3% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 160ms, Maximum = 351ms, Average = 280ms

As you can see this is pretty terrible. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Eric

Demonfang
join:2011-04-21
Spring Mills, PA

Demonfang

Member

looks like yet another co having the same issue i was having, makes me wonder if this kind of thing is really that widespread. also verizons current fix for this seems to be once enough complain they appear to do some throttling of speed over an entire co to about 1-1.5Mbps for every line regardless of package during congestion times to keep ping and packet loss down (which credit due does a good job of doing such) and then speeds back up when there is available bandwidth.

still no idea of what big red is going to do for this issue, but from what nick told me it will be either more stuff in the co or an rt (hopefully the latter for me), ymmv on what actually gets done.

fess
Central Pa
join:2003-10-17
Williamsport, PA

fess

Member

Yes I've been reading a lot lately about VZ having oversold central offices that do not have adequate back-haul. In my case it sounds like there is a mis-configuration or overloaded network gear in the CO itself since I am pinging the gateway IP of the DSLAM in this test which suggests congestion internally in the CO.

dslx_nick
ISP Employee
join:2011-12-24
Chatsworth, CA

dslx_nick

ISP Employee

I've been working with Demonfang and another user in PA with congestion issues - you're a bit far from them so you might not be connected to the same equipment, but it's quite possible you are. Let me investigate and see what I can find on that.

fess
Central Pa
join:2003-10-17
Williamsport, PA

fess

Member

Thank you Nick.

Demonfang
join:2011-04-21
Spring Mills, PA

Demonfang to fess

Member

to fess
heads up, as of about 25 min ago one of my lines got dropped and rerouted and is really snappy now, waiting on other line to have the same happen

fess
Central Pa
join:2003-10-17
Williamsport, PA

fess

Member

Well that is some good news for you. I've had another issue pop up. I have been unable to establish a PPPoE session on either of my lines since 5PM last evening. At first I thought it was Verizon working on this issue but I contacted Verizon's Executive Appeals office this morning and they claimed they haven't done anything. Ugh...

dslx_nick
ISP Employee
join:2011-12-24
Chatsworth, CA

dslx_nick

ISP Employee

Alright, so looks like you two are connected to different CO's, so definitely unrelated issues. Eric, in your case it turns out there's actually an outage in your area; waiting for further updates, but does explain why both of your lines are down at about the same time.

fess
Central Pa
join:2003-10-17
Williamsport, PA

fess

Member

Thanks Nick
fess

fess to dslx_nick

Member

to dslx_nick
Well the PPPoE issue has been resolved, wish I could say the same for the congestion issues.. The Speed test was my best out of 10 to 10 different servers in my region. The speedtest is utilizing multiple TCP streams mind you so this is both of my "3Mb/s connections". For example when I am not experiencing the congestion issues I pull just shy of 6Mb/s down/1.65 up.

Ping to gateway IP:

Pinging 10.29.15.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=325ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=470ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=410ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=309ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=380ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=359ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=374ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=399ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=497ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=539ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=372ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=294ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=353ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=499ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=250ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=500ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=252ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=375ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=313ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=299ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=273ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=255ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=242ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=363ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=379ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=213ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=254ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=503ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=223ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=315ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.29.15.1: bytes=32 time=357ms TTL=126

Ping statistics for 10.29.15.1:
Packets: Sent = 40, Received = 40, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 97ms, Maximum = 539ms, Average = 320ms

Pathping (50 trace routes summed together) to gateway address:

Tracing route to 10.29.15.1 over a maximum of 30 hops

0 [192.168.0.12]
1 192.168.0.254
2 10.29.15.1

Computing statistics for 50 seconds...
Source to Here This Node/Link
Hop RTT Lost/Sent = Pct Lost/Sent = Pct Address
0 [192.168.0.12]
0/ 100 = 0% |
1 1ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 192.168.0.254
2/ 100 = 2% |
2 295ms 2/ 100 = 2% 0/ 100 = 0% 10.29.15.1

Trace complete.

Traceroute to gateway address:

Tracing route to 10.29.15.1 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.254
2 455 ms 225 ms 217 ms 10.29.15.1

Trace complete.

Performing the same tests to the gateway of my Verizon modem produces nearly identical results.

Eric

dslx_nick
ISP Employee
join:2011-12-24
Chatsworth, CA

dslx_nick

ISP Employee

Was able to get some more information on this one - looks like an outage a bit further upstream than the DSLAM itself, hence why you're seeing intermittent/slow connectivity. Right now outage team is working to determine the best work-around or fix for it, but no ETR as of yet - outage is still ongoing, but you may still have some (spotty) connectivity while they work on it.