imtim83
You All Deserve The Economic Meltdown
Premium
join:2001-06-03
Kenner, LA | reply to Micheal64
Re: Latency in Oklahoma City
Dredster i hate when tickets are ignored too. Then its like you are waiting for nothing.
--
Any help is very appreicated.Please Reply.Thanks |
|
PapaSmurf
A Smurfy Salute
VIP
join:2001-08-05
smurfville
| reply to Micheal64
Agree. Hopefully, we can translate that into some meaningful site status notices as well. In any event, we'll all make sure we identify the real problem and ensure nothing's ignored.
I saw that 69.12.14.14 and a few others. That's part of the process TOC is engaged in, identifying the culprits. These composite posts here help as well. We can evidence who is being affected and how, especially if one or two points are causing all the grief. |
|
Micheal64
join:2002-03-05
Oklahoma City, OK | Agreed. |
|
Micheal64
join:2002-03-05
Oklahoma City, OK
| reply to Micheal64
Red Hat, you might find this interesting also. I'm seeing an awful lot of broadcast DHCP traffic being generated from my gateway as well. I don't know if this may have any bearing on any possible load issue or not. I've noticed this for awhile now and have mentioned it in other threads but thought that I might put some numbers here for you folks to go over.
Please note that the "message repeated" is what FreeBSD and other syslog daemons do to prevent the system from getting flooded due to the firewall entries. They all pertain to the last "log" entry above them.
For what it's worth, these are coming into my actual ip (68.12.xx.221) and I always thought that the 10.x.x.x block should stop at the cable modem and not pass to the public IP space. I could be mistaken on that.
-----------------
Mar 12 00:00:00 caverns newsyslog[21109]: logfile turned over
Mar 12 00:02:09 caverns /kernel: ipfw: 800 Deny UDP 10.0.0.1:67 255.255.255.255:68 in via ep0
Mar 12 00:02:09 caverns /kernel: ipfw: 800 Deny UDP 10.0.0.1:67 255.255.255.255:68 in via ep0
Mar 12 00:03:31 caverns /kernel: ipfw: 800 Deny UDP 10.0.0.1:67 255.255.255.255:68 in via ep0
Mar 12 00:08:31 caverns /kernel: ipfw: 800 Deny UDP 10.0.0.1:67 255.255.255.255:68 in via ep0
Mar 12 00:13:00 caverns /kernel: ipfw: 800 Deny UDP 10.0.0.1:67 255.255.255.255:68 in via ep0
Mar 12 00:18:31 caverns last message repeated 123 times
Mar 12 00:28:31 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 00:38:31 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 00:49:20 caverns last message repeated 16 times
Mar 12 00:58:31 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 01:08:45 caverns last message repeated 6 times
Mar 12 01:20:07 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 01:28:32 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 01:38:33 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 01:48:32 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 01:58:32 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 02:08:32 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 02:18:32 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 02:29:37 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 02:38:32 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 02:48:32 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 02:58:32 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 03:12:13 caverns last message repeated 6 times
Mar 12 03:19:05 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 03:28:33 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 03:38:33 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 03:48:33 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 03:58:33 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 04:08:33 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 04:18:33 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 04:28:33 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 04:38:33 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 04:52:27 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 05:03:01 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 05:08:33 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 05:18:33 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 05:28:33 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 05:41:08 caverns last message repeated 6 times
Mar 12 05:48:34 caverns last message repeated 2 times
Mar 12 06:03:34 caverns /kernel: ipfw: 800 Deny UDP 10.0.0.1:67 255.255.255.255:68 in via ep0
Mar 12 06:08:34 caverns /kernel: ipfw: 800 Deny UDP 10.0.0.1:67 255.255.255.255:68 in via ep0
Mar 12 06:13:34 caverns /kernel: ipfw: 800 Deny UDP 10.0.0.1:67 255.255.255.255:68 in via ep0
Mar 12 06:23:34 caverns last message repeated 8 times
Mar 12 06:33:35 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 06:43:20 caverns last message repeated 12 times
Mar 12 06:53:21 caverns last message repeated 8 times
Mar 12 07:03:21 caverns last message repeated 10 times
Mar 12 07:13:21 caverns last message repeated 6 times
Mar 12 07:23:21 caverns last message repeated 6 times
Mar 12 07:33:21 caverns last message repeated 4 times
Mar 12 07:43:21 caverns last message repeated 16 times
Mar 12 07:53:33 caverns last message repeated 14 times
Mar 12 08:03:34 caverns last message repeated 44 times
Mar 12 08:13:33 caverns last message repeated 50 times
Mar 12 08:23:34 caverns last message repeated 46 times
Mar 12 08:33:34 caverns last message repeated 54 times
Mar 12 08:43:34 caverns last message repeated 46 times
Mar 12 08:53:34 caverns last message repeated 46 times
Mar 12 09:03:35 caverns last message repeated 50 times
Mar 12 09:13:35 caverns last message repeated 42 times
Mar 12 09:23:35 caverns last message repeated 50 times
Mar 12 09:33:34 caverns last message repeated 56 times
Mar 12 09:43:35 caverns last message repeated 44 times
Mar 12 09:53:35 caverns last message repeated 46 times
Mar 12 10:03:34 caverns last message repeated 48 times
Mar 12 10:13:34 caverns last message repeated 42 times
Mar 12 10:23:34 caverns last message repeated 44 times
Mar 12 10:33:35 caverns last message repeated 46 times
Mar 12 10:43:35 caverns last message repeated 53 times
Mar 12 10:53:35 caverns last message repeated 52 times
Mar 12 11:03:35 caverns last message repeated 45 times
Mar 12 11:13:35 caverns last message repeated 48 times
Mar 12 11:23:35 caverns last message repeated 48 times
Mar 12 11:33:41 caverns last message repeated 54 times
Mar 12 11:43:36 caverns last message repeated 48 times
Mar 12 11:53:37 caverns last message repeated 47 times
Mar 12 12:03:36 caverns last message repeated 50 times
Mar 12 12:13:37 caverns last message repeated 52 times
Mar 12 12:23:37 caverns last message repeated 53 times
Mar 12 12:33:37 caverns last message repeated 51 times
Mar 12 12:43:38 caverns last message repeated 49 times
Mar 12 12:53:38 caverns last message repeated 52 times
Mar 12 13:03:38 caverns last message repeated 50 times
Mar 12 13:13:38 caverns last message repeated 52 times
Mar 12 13:23:38 caverns last message repeated 48 times
Mar 12 13:33:39 caverns last message repeated 49 times
Mar 12 13:43:39 caverns last message repeated 48 times
Mar 12 13:53:40 caverns last message repeated 58 times
Mar 12 14:03:40 caverns last message repeated 56 times
Mar 12 14:13:40 caverns last message repeated 50 times
Mar 12 14:23:43 caverns last message repeated 74 times
Mar 12 14:33:41 caverns last message repeated 82 times
Mar 12 14:43:41 caverns last message repeated 44 times
Mar 12 14:53:41 caverns last message repeated 44 times
Mar 12 15:03:42 caverns last message repeated 54 times
Mar 12 15:13:42 caverns last message repeated 48 times
Mar 12 15:23:42 caverns last message repeated 42 times
Mar 12 15:33:44 caverns last message repeated 48 times
Mar 12 15:35:41 caverns /kernel: ipfw: 800 Deny UDP 10.0.0.1:67 255.255.255.255:68 in via ep0
Mar 12 15:36:12 caverns last message repeated 5 times
Mar 12 15:38:11 caverns last message repeated 9 times
Mar 12 15:48:12 caverns last message repeated 44 times
Mar 12 15:51:12 caverns last message repeated 16 times
Mar 12 15:53:42 caverns /kernel: ipfw: 800 Deny UDP 10.0.0.1:67 255.255.255.255:68 in via ep0
Mar 12 15:54:13 caverns last message repeated 3 times
Mar 12 15:56:12 caverns last message repeated 8 times
Mar 12 15:58:13 caverns last message repeated 13 times
Mar 12 18:35:07 caverns /kernel: ipfw: 800 Deny UDP 10.0.0.1:67 255.255.255.255:68 in via ep0
Mar 12 18:44:48 caverns last message repeated 56 times
Mar 12 18:55:05 caverns last message repeated 58 times
Mar 12 19:04:48 caverns last message repeated 48 times
Mar 12 19:14:49 caverns last message repeated 48 times
Mar 12 19:24:49 caverns last message repeated 44 times
Mar 12 19:34:50 caverns last message repeated 47 times
Mar 12 19:44:49 caverns last message repeated 41 times
Mar 12 19:54:50 caverns last message repeated 48 times
Mar 12 20:04:50 caverns last message repeated 56 times
Mar 12 20:14:53 caverns last message repeated 64 times
Mar 12 20:24:59 caverns last message repeated 88 times
Mar 12 20:34:54 caverns last message repeated 86 times
Mar 12 20:44:54 caverns last message repeated 84 times
Mar 12 20:54:55 caverns last message repeated 84 times
[text was edited by author 2002-03-13 01:32:37] |
|
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
 ·AtlasOK
| reply to Micheal64
From what you told toy4x4, it looks like you want Tulsa problems here too. Things aren't doing too well tonight on my usually "good" connection.
My line test: »/quality/nil/698284
Here's another for reference: »/quality/nil/693889
[text was edited by author 2002-03-12 22:54:51] |
|
catseyenu
Ack Pfft
Premium
join:2001-11-17
Fix East
| reply to Micheal64
Heh, if I could just make it past the "Gate".
These late night scans beat my day results by at least 100%.
»/quality/nil/697473 |
|
cwren
join:2001-01-03
Oklahoma City, OK
| reply to Micheal64
Here's another one.
This one was done at 6:15 a.m. CST, so traffic should have been low.
Pinging 68.12.8.133 with 128 bytes of data:
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=13ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=27ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=17ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=14ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=27ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=13ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=15ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=12ms TTL=254
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=13ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.8.133: bytes=128 time=11ms TTL=254
Ping statistics for 68.12.8.133:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 93, Lost = 7 (7% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 10ms |
|
Zar
Premium
join:2001-08-04
Platte City, MO
| reply to Micheal64
Re: Latency in Oklahoma City
March 13 2002 at 8:30am |
|
Micheal64
join:2002-03-05
Oklahoma City, OK | »/quality/nil/698760
Still 10% loss on the 68.12.14.14 router. Also seeing the latency on my gateway on this one. I'm assuming that 68.12.8.14, 68.12.8.2, and 68.12.64.1 are the same unit. |
|
PapaSmurf
A Smurfy Salute
VIP
join:2001-08-05
smurfville | reply to Micheal64
Hey Dredster,
We worked through this post and identified what we think are possible candidates for NOC attention. Preparing tickets now. I'll be keeping an eye on those to see we get activity on them. |
|
Zar
Premium
join:2001-08-04
Platte City, MO
| reply to Micheal64
Cox called today. I am getting a truck roll. I tried to tell them that it is NOT my connection, its THEIR gateway that shows the packet losses..
68.12.8.53 BAD
68.12.8.61 GOOD!!
Well, whatever to make them happy, Will take notes and ask lots of questions..
And will show them my SWB DSL and how I get GREAT pings and NO packet loss!!
--
Don't knock on deaths door, ring the bell and run, he hates that. |
|
Micheal64
join:2002-03-05
Oklahoma City, OK
| reply to PapaSmurf
Thanks for the help Papa Smurf,
In the meantime, can you provide any info on the DHCP broadcasts that I'm constantly seeing from 10.0.0.1? Is this normal for the current network configuration? If it is, I'll not worry about it any more.
[text was edited by author 2002-03-13 16:34:11] |
|
Micheal64
join:2002-03-05
Oklahoma City, OK
| reply to PapaSmurf
said by PapaSmurf:
Hey Dredster,
We worked through this post and identified what we think are possible candidates for NOC attention. Preparing tickets now. I'll be keeping an eye on those to see we get activity on them.
Care to fill us in on what you think may be the problem? Or would you prefer to wait and see what NOC/TOC/SOC says about it?:)
[text was edited by author 2002-03-13 16:38:43] |
|
catseyenu
Ack Pfft
Premium
join:2001-11-17
Fix East
| reply to Micheal64
»/quality/nil/699018
Here is a VRoute for this afternoon |
|
Zar
Premium
join:2001-08-04
Platte City, MO
| reply to Micheal64
March 13 4:30 pm |
|
cwren
join:2001-01-03
Oklahoma City, OK
| reply to Micheal64
Here are a couple of traces taken at 5:45 p.m. CST, March 13. |
|
Micheal64
join:2002-03-05
Oklahoma City, OK
| »/quality/nil/698760
Here's test data from earlier today. I'm currently awaiting another one. At this time, I've got minor spikes.
Pinging 68.12.64.1 with 1500 bytes of data:
Reply from 68.12.64.1: bytes=1500 time=70ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.64.1: bytes=1500 time=154ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.64.1: bytes=1500 time=102ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.64.1: bytes=1500 time=54ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.64.1: bytes=1500 time=75ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.64.1: bytes=1500 time=47ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.64.1: bytes=1500 time=138ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.64.1: bytes=1500 time=138ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.64.1: bytes=1500 time=93ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.64.1: bytes=1500 time=128ms TTL=254
Ping statistics for 68.12.64.1:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 47ms, Maximum = 154ms, Average = 99ms |
|
Micheal64
join:2002-03-05
Oklahoma City, OK
| reply to Micheal64
Pappa Smurf, I just got some really disturbing information from tier 2 and tier 2.5.
1. There are approx 15 pages of ping statistics in Remedy ticket 594209 that indicate that I have a problem with my connection. Stats of December 2001 for history and a nearly full 24 hour report of March 11 2002. Tier 1, 2 and 2.5 agree that there is a problem.
2. Tier 1, Tier 2 and tier 2.5 are all seeing that my node is currently running at 90% cpu and tier 2 and tier 2.5 are in agreement that the node is overcap (It's exceeding 4000 modems currently) and they also both agree that this is probably the reason for my latency for the past 6 months.
3. Per tier 2, the issue is being treated as a single user issue as they've not had any other complaints about it from users on the node.
So, now I have an identified problem and an apparent issue with the node itself, yet there's no rush to correct it unless other customers call in. I was actually told to get other people on my node to call and complain as they'll treat the issue differently if it's effecting a group of people. Like I know who is on my node. I only know one of the other persons on my node and he only knows of me on the same node.
Now maybe, just maybe I'm a bit too upset to see things clearly but I'd welcome anyone to explain to me how a node that is obviously in distress AND apparently exceeding capacity is not by default considered a "group" issue.
I can only hope that some of the folks that have indicated problems in here are on the same node, otherwise it will remain treated as a single user issue and therefor a lower priority issue.
Papa Smurf, you are at least (with the help of a few others as I understand it) trying to get things straightened out and I applaud you for that and will help you in any way that I can. However, if the people that you're reporting these issues to have the same mindset as those that Tier 2 and Tier 2.5 are referring to, then I don't expect to see decent throughput for another 3-6 months or longer when "they" finally decide that it's time to split this apparently overloaded node.
So, based on that, if I've been misinformed in any way, I would appreciate someone telling me.
Dredster != happy camper
[text was edited by author 2002-03-14 00:11:59] |
|
Zar
Premium
join:2001-08-04
Platte City, MO | reply to Micheal64
»/quality/nil/699753 |
|
PapaSmurf
A Smurfy Salute
VIP
join:2001-08-05
smurfville
| reply to Micheal64
Dredster,
I'm limited in what I can say about internal processes or who said what to whom. However, I have some folks following up on this ticket and a few others. Your concerns are not being treated lightly, and I'm working with all the right people to make sure we get the traction we need to get this resolved. Bottom line - don't worry about what you heard. The issue is not closed. Hope that helps. |
|
