| |
to CamaroZ28
Re: Anyone Else having Ping / Connectivity Issuessaid by CamaroZ28:I'm not having any issues in Atlanta. In fact, I would say that my connection is better than ever because they fixed the route from me to 8.8.8.8, it used to get >100ms pings even though 8.8.4.4 was 1ms. Now, I get 1ms pings to both. Not that ICMP really means anything when it comes to network performance. I also tested UDP traces to 8.8.8.8 and got average 1.5ms with a maximum of 18ms over the course of about 10 minutes.
I would definitely notice if there is a latency issue here because I work from home and utilize remote desktop to connect to my office and it would be unusable with >500ms pings. I have peers in East Atlanta and other ares with AT&T fiber who don't have the issues when it happens but they take different routes than me and others reported issue so they aren't seeing the issue. It is a set audience who are unlucky with that route... |
|
dbpiv
join:2000-09-11
Dacula, GA |
dbpiv
Member
2020-Apr-2 2:27 pm
And like clockwork, my pings are headed up.... Already averaging about 70ms. |
|
 dscl
join:2001-07-15
Suwanee, GA |
dscl
Member
2020-Apr-2 2:40 pm
Over 100ms here in Suwanee. |
|
| |
to pyrodex1980
Wow, glad I'm not affected. Sorry everyone else has to deal with that mess though. |
|
| |
Anonc36ef to dscl
Anon
2020-Apr-2 3:31 pm
to dscl
Checking in from Cumming, GA as well. Past two nights pings were up over 1500ms. Was 10-15 this morning, now 150+ |
|
| |
Anon94fc2 to dscl
Anon
2020-Apr-2 3:36 pm
to dscl
I'm also in Sugar Hill area and mine is running fine.
Ping has started…
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=6.623 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=6.194 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=4.637 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=5.710 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=6.023 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=7.041 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=4.562 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=5.404 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=54 time=5.936 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=9 ttl=54 time=6.477 ms
--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 4.562/5.861/7.041/0.769 ms |
|
| |
Anon4bfa7
Anon
2020-Apr-2 3:54 pm
This morning at 7:30am:
Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=55
Now:
Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=210ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=215ms TTL=55
:-( |
|
| |
Anon94fc2
Anon
2020-Apr-2 4:01 pm
What route is everyone taking? I'm double NATed with an extra hop and still getting below 10ms from Sugar Hill:
Traceroute has started…
traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 64 hops max, 72 byte packets
1 192.168.86.1 (192.168.86.1) 1.271 ms 1.013 ms 1.472 ms
2 192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254) 1.835 ms 2.129 ms 2.344 ms
3 107-218-248-1.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net (107.218.248.1) 4.243 ms 8.891 ms 10.977 ms
4 * * *
5 12.242.113.19 (12.242.113.19) 5.283 ms 4.621 ms 5.293 ms
6 12.255.10.8 (12.255.10.8) 5.629 ms 3.395 ms 4.117 ms
7 172.253.71.63 (172.253.71.63) 4.036 ms 4.257 ms 5.141 ms
8 108.170.225.115 (108.170.225.115) 5.323 ms 5.112 ms 4.219 ms
9 dns.google (8.8.8.8) 6.050 ms 5.939 ms 4.692 ms |
|
 cerktmani suhport publik edukashun
join:2001-04-08
Hendersonville, TN |
1 23-127-32-1.lightspeed.nsvltn.sbcglobal.net (23.127.32.1) 0.752 ms 0.676 ms 0.617 ms
2 99.174.25.198 (99.174.25.198) 1.826 ms 1.775 ms 1.335 ms
3 99.131.205.156 (99.131.205.156) 2.807 ms 2.731 ms 4.097 ms
4 12.83.112.9 (12.83.112.9) 5.156 ms 12.83.112.17 (12.83.112.17) 4.056 ms 6.459 ms
5 12.122.140.237 (12.122.140.237) 8.632 ms 8.937 ms 8.853 ms
6 12.255.10.8 (12.255.10.8) 8.980 ms 9.458 ms 9.543 ms
7 * * *
8 108.170.225.108 (108.170.225.108) 10.583 ms 108.170.249.97 (108.170.249.97) 10.128 ms 9.821 ms
9 dns.google (8.8.8.8) 9.045 ms 108.170.225.119 (108.170.225.119) 9.239 ms 108.170.249.98 (108.170.249.98) 19.645 ms |
|
dbpiv
join:2000-09-11
Dacula, GA |
dbpiv
Member
2020-Apr-2 5:01 pm
I am tracking through TuckerGA.... To me the wildcard seems to be 12.255.10.8, but that could be me just assuming. |
|
| |
Anon94fc2
Anon
2020-Apr-2 5:10 pm
said by dbpiv:I am tracking through TuckerGA.... To me the wildcard seems to be 12.255.10.8, but that could be me just assuming. That's hop 6 in my trace and I get through there just fine. I don't think that's it. |
|
| Anon94fc2 |
Anon94fc2 to dbpiv
Anon
2020-Apr-2 5:14 pm
to dbpiv
It looks to me like, according to your first trace, it's something in 12.242.113.147, or between 12.242.113.147 and 12.255.10.8 hops.
If it were 12.255.10.8, I would be seeing it, as well as the poster before me. |
|
|
dbpiv
join:2000-09-11
Dacula, GA |
dbpiv
Member
2020-Apr-2 5:20 pm
I hear ya, but at the same time we know that an IP address doesn't necessarily represent one device, it can be load balancer splitting the load or a single IP used to break things up into a regional service. traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 192.168.2.254 (192.168.2.254) 0.576 ms 0.354 ms 0.315 ms
2 104-191-116-1.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net (104.191.116.1) 1.379 ms 1.201 ms 1.184 ms
3 * * *
4 12.242.113.147 (12.242.113.147) 3.352 ms 3.262 ms 3.358 ms
5 12.255.10.8 (12.255.10.8) 156.485 ms 169.981 ms 174.745 ms
6 * * *
7 108.170.249.97 (108.170.249.97) 61.330 ms
dns.google (8.8.8.8) 58.956 ms 62.298 ms
Whatever the answer is, the pings are not as bad today (still not good though). dp |
|
