PDA

View Full Version : [Merged] Manchester Ping Probs

Rone
05-10-2004, 21:50
As its getting cold and winter like [as it is all year :) ] ive started UT again, only i cant play on most servers.
So i did a tracert to our server once it was empty and i had nothing else running at all.

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 33 ms 6 ms 14 ms 10.10.112.1
3 26 ms 31 ms 23 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge93.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.133]
4 108 ms 143 ms 124 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan63.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.13
7]
5 177 ms 175 ms 171 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
6 129 ms 114 ms 143 ms ren-bb-a-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.161]

7 47 ms 31 ms 67 ms bre-bb-b-so-200-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.166]

8 27 ms 25 ms 27 ms bre-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.86]
9 69 ms 71 ms 87 ms redb-ic-1-so-010-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.106]

10 178 ms 180 ms 213 ms xpe.999.gi0-3.rt0.thdo.catalyst2.com [217.79.160
.108]
11 182 ms 159 ms 127 ms 213.230.200.165

My m8 in our UT clan laughed when he saw this. Someone immediately said [9:43pm]«@ KI» its prolly your ubr m8
[9:43pm]«@ KI» oversubscribed :/

Hes on NTL in Scotland and had no probs on the same server.
All the dutch guys blamed me for lagging them on a UK server

[9:47pm]«@ KI» 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms gateway.mshome.net [192.168.0.1]
[9:47pm]«@ KI» 2 8 ms 11 ms 6 ms 10.110.96.1
[9:47pm]«@ KI» 3 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms oldh-t2cam1-b-ge-wan42-113.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
[9:47pm]«@ KI» 4.181]
[9:47pm]«@ KI» 4 12 ms 8 ms 9 ms mant-t2core-b-ge-wan81.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
[9:47pm]«@ KI» .201]
[9:47pm]«@ KI» 5 8 ms 16 ms 9 ms man-bb-b-so-210-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.184.61]
[9:47pm]«@ KI» 6 14 ms 14 ms 20 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
[9:47pm]«@ KI» 7 64 ms 17 ms 28 ms bre-bb-b-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.234]
[9:47pm]«@ KI» 8 18 ms 27 ms 17 ms bre-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.86]
[9:47pm]«@ KI» 9 17 ms 18 ms 17 ms redb-ic-1-so-010-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.106]
[9:47pm]«@ KI» 10 18 ms 17 ms 18 ms xpe.999.gi0-3.rt0.thdo.catalyst2.com [217.79.160
[9:47pm]«@ KI» .108]
[9:47pm]«@ KI» 11 18 ms 17 ms 29 ms 213.230.200.165

Those are his, and he goes through Manchester where i live!!!!
Is there anything that can be done?
Or am i stuck with this crappy connection.
Oh yeh its 1.5 meg Sacm. :(
BBKing
05-10-2004, 22:07
Hes on NTL in Scotland and had no probs on the same server.

That second trace is from someone in the Oldham area - specifically on a UBR in Burnley (10.110.96.1). Hence it's not totally surprising that it's going through Manchester. I suggest he get a new A-Z!

The UBR isn't oversubscribed, either, this is peak time and nothing's even touching 50% of capacity.

The big increase in ping times between hops 3 and 4 is slightly worrying though, although my ping times in the reverse direction are all of 16ms to your UBR from here, which is fine. What does a ping directly to hops 3 and 4 give you?
Rone
05-10-2004, 22:24
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 7 ms 7 ms 6 ms 10.10.112.1
3 24 ms 8 ms 6 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge93.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.133]
is trace 3

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms 10.10.112.1
3 6 ms 8 ms 10 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge93.inet.ntl.com [80
4 8 ms 7 ms 8 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com
3]
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 * * * Request timed out.
9 * * * Request timed out.
10 * * * Request timed out.

is trace 4.

Yeh soz hes Scottish, but lives locally, my mistake not his. :)
Thanks for the quick reply, i dont expect perfection, but playable would help a lot. ;)
BBKing
05-10-2004, 22:41
Any chance of 100 or so pings to each of 80.5.162.133 and 80.5.161.137?
Rone
06-10-2004, 08:01
Errr not sure how i go about that one?
Jon M
06-10-2004, 08:30
just use "ping -t ipaddress" it will continue until you hit CTRL+C

*after hitting CTRL+C you'll get the overall statistics of the completed pings
Rone
06-10-2004, 08:42
Cheers for that, not something i do a lot of, as you know in most online gaming, you can test ping on the server.
Rone
06-10-2004, 08:55
Pinging 80.5.162.133 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253

Ping statistics for 80.5.162.133:
Packets: Sent = 103, Received = 103, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 40ms, Average = 7ms

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\GORDON>ping -t 80.5.162.133

Pinging 80.5.161.137 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=252

Ping statistics for 80.5.161.137:
Packets: Sent = 65, Received = 65, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 158ms, Average = 11ms

Not quite a 100, is that enough i hope?
Cheers.
BBKing
06-10-2004, 09:39
Average of 7ms 2nd hop (on ntl's network) and 11ms on 3rd hop is absolutely excellent - there's no UBR congestion, but of course you didn't do it at peak times. Is the problem more manifest at peak times?
altis
06-10-2004, 09:45
I have to say that, from time to time, I have noticed probs that appear to start at bagu-t2core too. When I manage to capture a tracert (or ping) showing this then I'll post it.
Rone
06-10-2004, 10:33
I have to say that, from time to time, I have noticed probs that appear to start at bagu-t2core too. When I manage to capture a tracert (or ping) showing this then I'll post it.


I hope you can find it m8 i really do,and no sorry, they were done asap this morning, i will try and do the same at about 7-9pm, thats usually my main online gaming time.
I do get funny spikes at other times, ive used one of those bandwidth monitor tools, and all of a sudden its like it cuts off,then recovers, but does,nt totally destroy the connection if that makes any sense at all.
scoper
06-10-2004, 18:49
Have tried playing counter strike over the last few days to find my ping has dropped badly.
Did a traceroute and got the following:

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com/) [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 19 ms 35 ms 104 ms 10.17.80.1
2 72 ms 177 ms 46 ms bagu-t2cam1-a-ge-wan54-126.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.105]
3 31 ms 95 ms 77 ms bagu-t2core-a-ge-wan61.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.5]
4 59 ms 19 ms * man-bb-a-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.25]
5 43 ms 34 ms 38 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
6 30 ms 133 ms 215 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
7 41 ms 67 ms 16 ms win-dc-a-v900.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.162]
8 92 ms 15 ms 14 ms www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com/) [62.253.162.30]
Trace complete.

These pings seem really bad to me. Anyone able to help?
Using a cable modem on 750k btw
Cheers
Florence
06-10-2004, 19:10
I am in Manchester Where abouts are you I am Droylsden and I have just done this tracert.

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1
2 20 ms 10 ms 10 ms 10.11.32.1
3 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms oldh-t2cam1-b-ge-wan51-120.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
4.209]
4 10 ms 110 ms 10 ms mant-t2core-b-ge-wan64.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
.181]
5 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms man-bb-b-so-130-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.22]

6 10 ms 20 ms 10 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]

7 10 ms 20 ms 10 ms win-dc-a-v900.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.162]
8 10 ms 21 ms 10 ms www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]

Trace complete.
scoper
06-10-2004, 19:13
I'm in Withington, South Manchester
Rone
06-10-2004, 19:35
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=18421

Check it out. ;)
Paul
06-10-2004, 19:53
just use "ping -t ipaddress" it will continue until you hit CTRL+C

*after hitting CTRL+C you'll get the overall statistics of the completed pings
Or you could just do "ping <ip> -n 100" and it will do exactly 100 pings for you. :D
scoper
06-10-2004, 19:53
Have posted another thread about this but thought I'd do what was suggested. Here's my results:

Pinging 80.5.162.133 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=201ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Request timed out.
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=254
Request timed out.
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=254
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=254

Ping statistics for 80.5.162.133:
Packets: Sent = 70, Received = 68, Lost = 2 (2% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 7ms, Maximum = 270ms, Average = 60ms

Is it me or do these results look really bad?
Paul
06-10-2004, 19:59
Have posted another thread about this but thought I'd do what was suggested. Threads merged.
Florence
06-10-2004, 20:16
I have just pinged that IP number 100 times and this is my results.

Ping statistics for 80.5.162.133:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 40ms, Average = 13ms

had some 30ms and 40ms but mainly was 10ms
scoper
06-10-2004, 20:57
Just wondering - does this sound like a problem with my system or an ntl problem?
Florence
07-10-2004, 08:13
Just wondering - does this sound like a problem with my system or an ntl problem?

Have you?
1/ virus checked the system.
2/ scanned for adware
3/ tojens
is you modem connected by?
1/ ethernet
2/USB

if you have and are connected by ethernet then check what times you have the high ping problem, to see if its peak times when you have the highest pings.. Some days I can slow right down to a crawl at peak times and others times it just flies along at top speed. I am also on 750K.
scoper
07-10-2004, 08:33
Yeah, I've virus checked, trojan checked and and scanned for adware. I'm connected via ethernet.

Doesn't seem to be time of day dependent either. Just getting really bad pings pretty much all the time. Download and upload speeds are all ok though...
Rone
07-10-2004, 09:26
Thats true, d\loads everything else, including speedtests read fine, its just any sort of gaming it seems to be affecting.
JohnHorb
07-10-2004, 19:11
Just tried pinging that address - results:-
min 17ms, max 139ms, average 70ms. No packets lost

I also get consistently poor ping results on Dan Ewell's speed test. Not causing me any problems, as my download speed is OK, and I don't use for gaming, but perhaps this does indicate some Manchester problem (Manchester M33)
BBKing
07-10-2004, 19:45
This is beginning to look like a networks issue on the big hardware serving Baguley and surrounding areas - will prod Ignition if he's around, as it's out of my league.
scoper
07-10-2004, 21:51
This situation seems to be getting worse:
Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 104 ms 34 ms 58 ms 10.17.80.1
2 * 14 ms 114 ms bagu-t2cam1-a-ge-wan54-126.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
2.105]
3 80 ms 25 ms * bagu-t2core-a-ge-wan61.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.5]
4 33 ms 48 ms 96 ms man-bb-a-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.25]
5 * 18 ms 59 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
6 20 ms 20 ms * win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
7 218 ms 32 ms 47 ms win-dc-a-v900.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.162]
8 179 ms 68 ms 51 ms www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]
Trace complete.


Ping statistics for 80.5.162.133:
Packets: Sent = 75, Received = 74, Lost = 1 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 257ms, Average = 76ms

There definitely seems to be something wrong here. Not sure what to do. Would it be worth trying to contact ntl helpdesk to register problem?
scoper
07-10-2004, 22:59
Just spoke to a surprisingly helpful person at ntl techical help. He told me that, having tested my cable connection (modem disconnected from computer), there was definitely a problem. He put this down to work that is happening in the Manchester area (and probably other areas too). Unfortunately he couldn't put a timescale on when it would be fixed but said the work was ongoing and would be sorted out.

Nice to know I don't have to go reformatting and installing everything again to try to sort out the problem myself. Guess it's just a matter of playing the waiting game now....
Ignition
07-10-2004, 23:51
This is beginning to look like a networks issue on the big hardware serving Baguley and surrounding areas - will prod Ignition if he's around, as it's out of my league.

What's up dude?

*Reads*

EDIT: The phatness looks ok there at the moment, I guess the blokies with their fingers on the buttons have fixed it.
scoper
08-10-2004, 01:16
Don't know what's happened but things seem to be back to normal now:

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 58 ms 9 ms 17 ms 10.17.80.1
2 36 ms 20 ms 38 ms bagu-t2cam1-a-ge-wan54-126.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
2.105]
3 12 ms 9 ms 7 ms bagu-t2core-a-ge-wan61.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.5]
4 6 ms 24 ms 26 ms man-bb-a-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.25]
5 44 ms 31 ms 10 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
6 48 ms 15 ms 26 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
7 18 ms 13 ms 19 ms win-dc-a-v900.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.162]
8 71 ms 12 ms 15 ms www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]
Trace complete.

Ping statistics for 80.5.162.133:
Packets: Sent = 61, Received = 61, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 5ms, Maximum = 57ms, Average = 17ms
Florence
08-10-2004, 08:08
Thats good to hear scoper wonder if thast means I will be even quicker. :)
Rone
08-10-2004, 09:51
Well either way at least NTL are aware theres a problem, and hopefully its resolved or will be soon.
Again, thanks to those involved for taking the time to have a look at whats wrong.
scoper
08-10-2004, 15:46
Oh dear looks like I spoke to soon - has gone back to being just as bad as before. Hopefully this will get sorted out soon????
Rone
08-10-2004, 17:04
If its going to cost more than the price of a network card, i,m betting not. :(
scrotnig
08-10-2004, 18:41
Hmm, I'm in Manchester on a SACM and mine's as brilliant as always....perhaps I should keep my mouth shut!
JohnHorb
08-10-2004, 18:51
Min 15 ms, max 125ms avg 70ms.

Pretty much same as last time I posted. As before, no apperent effect on downloads, etc. Do bad pings only affect gamers?
th'engineer
08-10-2004, 19:37
North Manchester now
C:\WINDOWS>ping www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com)
Pinging www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 62.253.162.30: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=247
Reply from 62.253.162.30: bytes=32 time=440ms TTL=247
Request timed out.
Reply from 62.253.162.30: bytes=32 time=522ms TTL=247

Ping statistics for 62.253.162.30:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 522ms, Average = 247ms

C:\WINDOWS>tracert www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com)
Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.2.1
2 14 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1
3 728 ms 206 ms 453 ms 10.23.48.1
4 495 ms * 220 ms oldh-t2cam1-a-ge910.inet.ntl.com [80.5.164.61]
5 316 ms 425 ms 426 ms mant-t2core-a-ge-wan64.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
.53]
6 * 783 ms * man-bb-a-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.184.57]
7 384 ms * 137 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
8 577 ms 439 ms 508 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
9 439 ms * 577 ms win-dc-a-v903.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.34]
10 274 ms 275 ms 275 ms www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]
Trace complete.
C:\WINDOWS>
th'engineer
08-10-2004, 19:40
:wtf: going on guys
JohnHorb
08-10-2004, 19:40
(Mine's Samsung STB BTW)
Florence
08-10-2004, 19:50
North Manchester and still flying!!

Pinging www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 62.253.162.30: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=248
Reply from 62.253.162.30: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=248
Reply from 62.253.162.30: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=248
Reply from 62.253.162.30: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=248

Ping statistics for 62.253.162.30:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 20ms, Average = 12ms

a tracert only shows the networking running smoothly for me :tu: to those who sorted out my last problem all those moons ago.

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <10 ms <10 ms 10 ms 192.168.0.1
2 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 10.11.32.1
3 10 ms <10 ms 10 ms oldh-t2cam1-b-ge-wan51-120.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
4.209]
4 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms mant-t2core-b-ge-wan64.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
.181]
5 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms man-bb-b-so-130-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.22]

6 10 ms 10 ms 20 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]

7 21 ms 10 ms 20 ms win-dc-a-v900.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.162]
8 20 ms 10 ms 20 ms www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]

Trace complete.
Rone
08-10-2004, 20:07
Heres some from tonmight at 8.08pm, with no load whatsoever.

Pinging 80.5.162.133 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=253
Reply from 80.5.162.133: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=253

Ping statistics for 80.5.162.133:
Packets: Sent = 70, Received = 70, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 8ms


Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\GORDON>ping -t 80.5.161.137

Pinging 80.5.161.137 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=272ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=246ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=466ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=239ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=362ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=232ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=226ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=188ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=252

Ping statistics for 80.5.161.137:
Packets: Sent = 86, Received = 86, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 466ms, Average = 72ms
Even to me, that second one looks like a problem. :(
daxx
08-10-2004, 20:23
CHUFFING 'ECK CHUCKS

2.95Kbs from a 1m thru a sammy from a major site 'sharp-mobile.com'

Something gone seriously wrong methinks

SK9 7xx
thru baguely

Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=313ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=359ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=359ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=235ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=218ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=252
Reply from 80.5.161.137: bytes=32 time=421ms TTL=252
Ping statistics for 80.5.161.137:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 421ms, Average = 36ms
Rone
08-10-2004, 21:03
Baguley- the missing link.
Its almost in air-rifle range from me, i could get there faster than the cable network atm. ;)
Ignition
08-10-2004, 21:34
Guys, guys GUYS

Posting huge prolonged pings isn't going to help here, need some traceroutes really.

If you wish you can PM me with your current IP address. I need this so that I can look for a common component.

Th'Eng your issue won't be this one if this is in fact a network issue, feel free to send me the details though anyway.

Give me info I will investigate, without it I can't be much help to anyone, and please no massive pastes of pings, it makes the thread much harder to read.
daxx
08-10-2004, 23:07
here are couple and from my limited knowledge of reading these things it 'looks OK' on the NTL side but a bit of a hicup on the last one

Tracing route to cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1
2 16 ms <10 ms 15 ms *.*.*.*
3 <10 ms 15 ms 16 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge-wan53-124.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.225]
4 16 ms <10 ms 16 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan61.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.129]
5 15 ms 16 ms 16 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
6 16 ms 15 ms <10 ms lee-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.185]
7 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms pop-bb-b-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.238]
8 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms tele-ic-1-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.82]
9 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms linx.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ltn.nac.net [195.66.224.94]
10 78 ms 94 ms 78 ms 0.ge-6-2-0.gbr2.nyc.nac.net [209.123.11.181]
11 93 ms 79 ms 93 ms 94.gi4-2.esd1.nyc.nac.net [64.21.102.14]
12 94 ms 78 ms 93 ms 10.gi1-1.esd1.tlw.nac.net [209.123.11.230]
13 94 ms 94 ms 78 ms ezzi-2.customer.tlw.nac.net [207.99.110.174]
14 94 ms 93 ms 94 ms 65.125.239.146
15 94 ms 94 ms 78 ms phoenix.cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]
Trace Complete.

Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.154] over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1
2 16 ms <10 ms <10 ms *.*.*.*
3 <10 ms 16 ms 15 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge-wan53-124.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.225]
4 15 ms <10 ms 16 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.133]
5 <10 ms 16 ms <10 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
6 15 ms 16 ms 16 ms lee-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.185]
7 <10 ms 16 ms 15 ms nth-bb-b-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.101]
8 16 ms 16 ms <10 ms pop-bb-a-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.14]
9 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms tele-ic-2-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.86]
10 15 ms 16 ms 219 ms 212.58.239.217
11 31 ms 16 ms 15 ms 212.58.238.129
12 15 ms 16 ms 31 ms 212.58.238.33
13 31 ms 16 ms 16 ms pos6-0.rt1.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.231]
14 16 ms 16 ms 31 ms bogons.mh.bbc.co.uk [212.58.228.154]
Trace Complete.

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com/) [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1
2 16 ms <10 ms 15 ms 10.16.32.1
3 <10 ms 15 ms <10 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge-wan53-124.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.225]
4 16 ms <10 ms 16 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan64.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.141]
5 16 ms <10 ms <10 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
6 15 ms <10 ms 16 ms man-bb-a-so-700-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.193]
7 15 ms 16 ms 16 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
8 16 ms 15 ms 32 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
9 32 ms 46 ms 63 ms win-dc-a-v903.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.34]
10 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com/) [62.253.162.30]
Trace Complete.

IP sent by PM
th'engineer
09-10-2004, 06:52
Guys, guys GUYS

Posting huge prolonged pings isn't going to help here, need some traceroutes really.

If you wish you can PM me with your current IP address. I need this so that I can look for a common component.

Th'Eng your issue won't be this one if this is in fact a network issue, feel free to send me the details though anyway.

Give me info I will investigate, without it I can't be much help to anyone, and please no massive pastes of pings, it makes the thread much harder to read.
Ign,
You have my ip, anyway whats the different issue with mine you have the tracert through rochdale ubr
swoop101
09-10-2004, 07:25
Just done this tracert

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 9 ms 4 ms 3 ms Soho Router [192.168.1.1]
2 11 ms 10 ms 11 ms 10.10.32.1
3 10 ms 9 ms 11 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge92.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.129]
4 135 ms 174 ms 152 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan63.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.137]
5 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
6 11 ms 12 ms 11 ms man-bb-a-so-700-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.193]

7 13 ms 11 ms 13 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
8 19 ms 17 ms 17 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]

9 18 ms 17 ms 18 ms win-dc-a-v900.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.162]
10 17 ms 17 ms 16 ms www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]

Trace complete.

step 4 is a bummer

And I live IN Baguley
JohnHorb
09-10-2004, 08:17
Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 87 ms 13 ms 86 ms 192.168.2.1
2 94 ms 101 ms 101 ms 10.10.224.1
3 20 ms 102 ms 102 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge95.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.141]
4 18 ms 101 ms 103 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan64.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.14
1]
5 25 ms 101 ms 101 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
6 21 ms 102 ms 102 ms man-bb-a-so-700-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.193]

7 18 ms 102 ms 101 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
8 25 ms 102 ms 101 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]

9 126 ms 100 ms 101 ms win-dc-a-v902.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.222]
10 124 ms 101 ms 102 ms www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]

Trace complete.

IP PM'd
BBKing
09-10-2004, 09:43
step 4 is a bummer

Not really - it would be if every subsequent return time was higher, but they aren't. Your broadband performance isn't dependent on the ping times to one router!

However, it would be worth while finding out what that box is doing to delay ping replies - it's perfectly entitled to, though.
swoop101
09-10-2004, 09:56
However, it would be worth while finding out what that box is doing to delay ping replies - it's perfectly entitled to, though.

Well you tell me where it is and I have a nice little 16lb adjuster waiting in my shed that will fix it :D
Florence
09-10-2004, 10:48
Well you tell me where it is and I have a nice little 16lb adjuster waiting in my shed that will fix it :D

:Yikes: then everyone will be offline.

Todays tracert taken at 10.41

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1
2 190 ms 10 ms 10 ms 10.11.32.1
3 391 ms 110 ms 20 ms oldh-t2cam1-b-ge-wan51-120.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
4.209]
4 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms mant-t2core-b-ge-wan64.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
.181]
5 340 ms 20 ms <10 ms man-bb-b-so-130-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.22]

6 20 ms 10 ms 10 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]

7 181 ms 20 ms 10 ms win-dc-a-v900.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.162]
8 100 ms 110 ms 10 ms www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]

Trace complete.
BBKing
09-10-2004, 11:05
Well you tell me where it is and I have a nice little 16lb adjuster waiting in my shed that will fix it

That's a good reason not to tell you where it is! Mind you, I've nothing against giving delicate electrical equipment a good thumping, it shows it who's boss.

Alright, it's in Baguley, ok?

:)
swoop101
09-10-2004, 12:36
Alright, it's in Baguley, ok?

:)


smart arse :rolleyes: :D :p: :erm:
th'engineer
09-10-2004, 12:56
back to normal 12.53 today
C:\WINDOWS>tracert www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com)
Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.2.1
2 <10 ms 14 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1
3 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms 10.23.48.1
4 14 ms 14 ms <10 ms oldh-t2cam1-a-ge910.inet.ntl.com [80.5.164.61]
5 14 ms 27 ms 14 ms mant-t2core-a-ge-wan64.inet.ntl.com [213.104.24
.53]
6 14 ms 14 ms <10 ms man-bb-a-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.184.57]
7 <10 ms 13 ms 14 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
8 14 ms 13 ms 28 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
9 14 ms 28 ms 13 ms win-dc-a-v903.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.34]
10 27 ms 14 ms 14 ms www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]
Trace complete.
Ignition
09-10-2004, 15:00
You go through Oldham t2cams and Mant t2cores, not Baguley as the chaps who have been reporting issues apparently do. Kits goes through the same t2cams and cores and is reporting no issues. You seem to have probs at uBR level.

Also I can't find your IP to hand, don't keep them all especially as they are not static, please could you re-send and I'll give your connection the once over at RF and IP level.

In any case keep the traceroutes coming please.

EDIT: I can't help but feel that this is all getting a bit obsessional, a traceroute that's a bit off-colour isn't a reason for a huge panic, could just have been burst traffic on the cable modem ;) If performance remains consistently poor then it's time to complain somewhat.

JohnHorb, any idea why your router is showing monumentally bad ping times?

1 87 ms 13 ms 86 ms 192.168.2.1
2 94 ms 101 ms 101 ms 10.10.224.1

Compare it to mine:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms gatelock-corporate.inside.net [192.168.253.1]
2 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms x-modem.inside.net [10.0.0.2]
3 19 ms 19 ms 20 ms 82-197-73-6.hi-velocity.net [82.197.73.6]
swoop101
09-10-2004, 15:56
Seems the threat of my attention fixed it :D :p:

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 8 ms 2 ms 2 ms Soho Router [192.168.1.1]
2 9 ms 10 ms 10 ms 10.10.32.1
3 13 ms 10 ms 10 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge92.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.129]
4 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan63.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.137]
5 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
6 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms man-bb-a-so-700-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.193]
7 13 ms 12 ms 17 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
8 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
9 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms win-dc-a-v900.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.162]
10 18 ms 17 ms 16 ms www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]

Trace complete.
JohnHorb
09-10-2004, 17:31
JohnHorb, any idea why your router is showing monumentally bad ping times?

1 87 ms 13 ms 86 ms 192.168.2.1
2 94 ms 101 ms 101 ms 10.10.224.1

Compare it to mine:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms gatelock-corporate.inside.net [192.168.253.1]
2 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms x-modem.inside.net [10.0.0.2]
3 19 ms 19 ms 20 ms 82-197-73-6.hi-velocity.net [82.197.73.6]No idea, unless it's because it's wireless? (Belkin)
Florence
09-10-2004, 17:41
Ignition I don't know how you do it I can never get less that 10ms

1 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms Actiontec wireless router 192.168.0.1
th'engineer
09-10-2004, 17:47
ignition mail sent with IP

C:\WINDOWS>tracert www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com/) time 17.47
Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com/) [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.2.1 firewall
2 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1 router
3 274 ms 14 ms 14 ms 10.23.48.1
4 <10 ms 14 ms 41 ms oldh-t2cam1-a-ge910.inet.ntl.com [80.5.164.61]
5 13 ms 14 ms 14 ms mant-t2core-a-ge-wan64.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
.53]
6 247 ms 233 ms 275 ms man-bb-a-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.184.57]
7 13 ms 14 ms 14 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
8 14 ms 13 ms 28 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
9 28 ms 13 ms 14 ms win-dc-a-v903.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.34]
10 27 ms 14 ms 14 ms www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com/) [62.253.162.30]
Trace complete.
th'engineer
09-10-2004, 17:52
C:\WINDOWS>ping 10.23.48.1

Pinging 10.23.48.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 10.23.48.1:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

C:\WINDOWS>tracert 10.23.48.1

Tracing route to 10.23.48.1 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 <10 ms <10 ms 14 ms 192.168.2.1
2 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 * * * Request timed out.
6
BBKing
09-10-2004, 18:36
Pinging 10.23.48.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Try pinging your default gateway instead...

<10 ms

Er - that means 'less than 10ms'. Windows can't measure that accurately.
Ignition
09-10-2004, 20:57
Windows 2000 can't measure that accurately, Windows XP can, as can the freeware tool HRPing. :)
Florence
09-10-2004, 21:23
tonights tracert...

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1
2 200 ms 240 ms 251 ms 10.11.32.1
3 250 ms 110 ms 100 ms oldh-t2cam1-b-ge-wan51-120.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
4.209]
4 190 ms 200 ms 261 ms mant-t2core-b-ge-wan64.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
.181]
5 160 ms 131 ms 180 ms man-bb-b-so-130-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.22]

6 271 ms 70 ms 80 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]

7 231 ms 200 ms 250 ms win-dc-a-v900.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.162]
8 190 ms 170 ms 201 ms www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]

Trace complete.

not as good as the morning one....
but three pcs working online. :)
Ignition
09-10-2004, 23:19
So knowing there are 3 PCs online using the bandwidth the value of that traceroute is?
altis
10-10-2004, 18:58
Here's some that I've just grabbed while I was idley chatting on the phone.Tracing route to cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 12 ms 8 ms 30 ms 10.15.80.1
2 17 ms 12 ms 11 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge-wan52-122.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.217]
3 10 ms 30 ms 11 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.133]
4 11 ms 12 ms 11 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
5 10 ms 11 ms 10 ms lee-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.185]
6 17 ms 20 ms 17 ms pop-bb-b-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.238]
7 18 ms 19 ms 19 ms tele-ic-1-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.82]
8 18 ms 18 ms 20 ms linx.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ltn.nac.net [195.66.224.94]
9 86 ms 103 ms 90 ms 0.ge-6-2-0.gbr2.nyc.nac.net [209.123.11.181]
10 86 ms 86 ms 104 ms 94.gi4-2.esd1.nyc.nac.net [64.21.102.14]
11 104 ms 87 ms 113 ms 10.gi1-1.esd1.tlw.nac.net [209.123.11.230]
12 98 ms 98 ms 122 ms ezzi-2.customer.tlw.nac.net [207.99.110.174]
13 102 ms 149 ms 101 ms 65.125.239.146
14 101 ms 102 ms 101 ms cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]

Trace complete.

Tracing route to cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 9 ms 70 ms 10 ms 10.15.80.1
2 10 ms 17 ms 12 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge-wan52-122.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.217]
3 10 ms 13 ms 10 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.133]
4 11 ms 42 ms 21 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
5 11 ms 11 ms 22 ms lee-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.185]
6 16 ms 17 ms 17 ms pop-bb-b-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.238]
7 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms tele-ic-1-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.82]
8 18 ms 28 ms 19 ms linx.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ltn.nac.net [195.66.224.94]
9 87 ms 87 ms 97 ms 0.ge-6-2-0.gbr2.nyc.nac.net [209.123.11.181]
10 87 ms 88 ms 87 ms 94.gi4-2.esd1.nyc.nac.net [64.21.102.14]
11 86 ms 99 ms 87 ms 10.gi1-1.esd1.tlw.nac.net [209.123.11.230]
12 98 ms 101 ms 101 ms ezzi-2.customer.tlw.nac.net [207.99.110.174]
13 99 ms 109 ms 123 ms 65.125.239.146
14 111 ms 129 ms 101 ms cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]

Trace complete.

Tracing route to cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 11 ms 9 ms 8 ms 10.15.80.1
2 9 ms 9 ms 30 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge-wan52-122.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.217]
3 12 ms 12 ms 17 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.133]
4 21 ms 12 ms 13 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
5 13 ms 10 ms 10 ms lee-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.185]
6 15 ms 16 ms 19 ms pop-bb-b-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.238]
7 19 ms 21 ms 46 ms tele-ic-1-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.82]
8 18 ms 19 ms 41 ms linx.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ltn.nac.net [195.66.224.94]
9 88 ms 87 ms 126 ms 0.ge-6-2-0.gbr2.nyc.nac.net [209.123.11.181]
10 87 ms 90 ms 86 ms 94.gi4-2.esd1.nyc.nac.net [64.21.102.14]
11 106 ms 227 ms 244 ms 10.gi1-1.esd1.tlw.nac.net [209.123.11.230]
12 99 ms 110 ms 115 ms ezzi-2.customer.tlw.nac.net [207.99.110.174]
13 109 ms 101 ms 102 ms 65.125.239.146
14 101 ms 99 ms 101 ms cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]

Trace complete.

Tracing route to cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms 10.15.80.1
2 12 ms 23 ms 31 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge-wan52-122.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.217]
3 21 ms 12 ms 11 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.133]
4 13 ms 12 ms 11 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
5 21 ms 12 ms 13 ms lee-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.185]
6 17 ms 39 ms 17 ms pop-bb-b-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.238]
7 20 ms 17 ms 19 ms tele-ic-1-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.82]
8 20 ms 19 ms 25 ms linx.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ltn.nac.net [195.66.224.94]
9 87 ms 88 ms 86 ms 0.ge-6-2-0.gbr2.nyc.nac.net [209.123.11.181]
10 86 ms 87 ms 88 ms 94.gi4-2.esd1.nyc.nac.net [64.21.102.14]
11 96 ms 117 ms 88 ms 10.gi1-1.esd1.tlw.nac.net [209.123.11.230]
12 98 ms 97 ms 98 ms ezzi-2.customer.tlw.nac.net [207.99.110.174]
13 131 ms 100 ms 101 ms 65.125.239.146
14 102 ms 108 ms 102 ms cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]

Trace complete.

Tracing route to cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 9 ms 39 ms 20 ms 10.15.80.1
2 10 ms 11 ms 10 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge-wan52-122.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.217]
3 138 ms 348 ms 15 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.133]
4 23 ms 13 ms 14 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
5 14 ms 15 ms 12 ms lee-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.185]
6 18 ms 17 ms 17 ms pop-bb-b-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.238]
7 22 ms 18 ms 18 ms tele-ic-1-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.82]
8 23 ms 20 ms 18 ms linx.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ltn.nac.net [195.66.224.94]
9 86 ms 90 ms 87 ms 0.ge-6-2-0.gbr2.nyc.nac.net [209.123.11.181]
10 105 ms 220 ms 205 ms 94.gi4-2.esd1.nyc.nac.net [64.21.102.14]
11 88 ms 86 ms 88 ms 10.gi1-1.esd1.tlw.nac.net [209.123.11.230]
12 108 ms 100 ms 100 ms ezzi-2.customer.tlw.nac.net [207.99.110.174]
13 100 ms 101 ms 99 ms 65.125.239.146
14 101 ms 101 ms 101 ms cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]

Trace complete.

Tracing route to cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 57 ms 9 ms 9 ms 10.15.80.1
2 10 ms 10 ms 12 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge-wan52-122.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.217]
3 10 ms 11 ms 12 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.133]
4 10 ms 11 ms 10 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
5 22 ms 11 ms 11 ms lee-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.185]
6 17 ms 17 ms 17 ms pop-bb-b-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.238]
7 20 ms 48 ms 21 ms tele-ic-1-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.82]
8 21 ms 18 ms 18 ms linx.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ltn.nac.net [195.66.224.94]
9 85 ms 87 ms 87 ms 0.ge-6-2-0.gbr2.nyc.nac.net [209.123.11.181]
10 86 ms 86 ms 87 ms 94.gi4-2.esd1.nyc.nac.net [64.21.102.14]
11 108 ms 88 ms 87 ms 10.gi1-1.esd1.tlw.nac.net [209.123.11.230]
12 97 ms 97 ms 100 ms ezzi-2.customer.tlw.nac.net [207.99.110.174]
13 116 ms 101 ms 101 ms 65.125.239.146
14 100 ms 112 ms 101 ms cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]

Trace complete.

Tracing route to cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 9 ms 9 ms 18 ms 10.15.80.1
2 10 ms 27 ms 11 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge-wan52-122.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.217]
3 11 ms 33 ms 9 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.133]
4 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
5 23 ms 11 ms 12 ms lee-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.185]
6 43 ms 18 ms 16 ms pop-bb-b-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.238]
7 44 ms 35 ms 19 ms tele-ic-1-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.82]
8 17 ms 18 ms 18 ms linx.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ltn.nac.net [195.66.224.94]
9 87 ms 87 ms 86 ms 0.ge-6-2-0.gbr2.nyc.nac.net [209.123.11.181]
10 87 ms 87 ms 86 ms 94.gi4-2.esd1.nyc.nac.net [64.21.102.14]
11 89 ms 88 ms 88 ms 10.gi1-1.esd1.tlw.nac.net [209.123.11.230]
12 99 ms 98 ms 98 ms ezzi-2.customer.tlw.nac.net [207.99.110.174]
13 100 ms 100 ms 127 ms 65.125.239.146
14 100 ms 101 ms 103 ms cableforum.co.uk [66.199.235.18]

Trace complete.

They're usually faster than this but I guess there's lots of peeps gaming at the moment. I've also noticed quite often recently that my browsing stumbles and I have to hit refresh to make the page display properly.
Rone
10-10-2004, 19:04
I always thought gaming used little bandwidth?
Maybe someone can give us a yes or a no on that one?
BBKing
10-10-2004, 19:39
I always thought gaming used little bandwidth?

Perfectly true, in comparison with, say, P2P or streaming media. However, to do any kind of speed test, bandwidth or latency, it is usually considered imperative to stop any other internet activity on the connection. Otherwise the results can be expected to show the connection as being worse than it actually is.
iadom
10-10-2004, 19:48
I've also noticed quite often recently that my browsing stumbles and I have to hit refresh to make the page display properly.
Same here, for past couple of weeks, particularly with cableforum.
th'engineer
10-10-2004, 20:27
and tonights from the eng
C:\WINDOWS>tracert www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com/)
Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com/) [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 14 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.2.1
2 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1
3 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms 10.23.48.1
4 14 ms 27 ms 14 ms oldh-t2cam1-a-ge910.inet.ntl.com [80.5.164.61]
5 14 ms 13 ms 28 ms mant-t2core-a-ge-wan64.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
.53]
6 14 ms 13 ms 42 ms man-bb-a-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.184.57]
7 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
8 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
9 14 ms 13 ms 14 ms win-dc-a-v903.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.34]
10 28 ms 13 ms 28 ms www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com/) [62.253.162.30]
Trace complete.
C:\WINDOWS>

almost forgot for BBk ping of gateway C:\WINDOWS>ping 192.168.2.1
Pinging 192.168.2.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=64
Ping statistics for 192.168.2.1:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms:D
Rone
11-10-2004, 15:15
Seems theres a problem without a doubt, anyone know if there will be a "repair" of whatever is affected?
scoper
11-10-2004, 18:04
Traceroute today at 18:00

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 * 9 ms * 10.17.80.1
2 33 ms 40 ms 31 ms bagu-t2cam1-a-ge-wan54-126.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
2.105]
3 209 ms 10 ms * bagu-t2core-a-ge-wan61.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.5]
4 29 ms 101 ms 69 ms man-bb-a-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.25]
5 295 ms 208 ms 40 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
6 * 62 ms 74 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
7 55 ms 48 ms 76 ms win-dc-a-v902.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.222]
8 256 ms 50 ms 29 ms www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]
Trace complete.

Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk (http://www.bbc.net.uk) [212.58.224.55]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 6 ms 30 ms 9 ms 10.17.80.1
2 * 85 ms 31 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge-wan54-126.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
2.233]
3 49 ms 79 ms 58 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan61.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.12
9]
4 36 ms 95 ms 63 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
5 49 ms 135 ms 41 ms lee-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.185]
6 116 ms 145 ms 180 ms nth-bb-b-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.101]
7 35 ms 60 ms 96 ms pop-bb-a-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.14]
8 30 ms 54 ms 114 ms tele-ic-2-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.86]
9 * 86 ms 70 ms 212.58.239.217
10 27 ms * 25 ms 212.58.238.153
11 23 ms 181 ms 79 ms www9.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.55]
Trace complete.

Not really sure how to read this information but doesn't look good to me.
scoper
11-10-2004, 18:14
and ping results:

Ping statistics for 80.5.162.133:
Packets: Sent = 92, Received = 84, Lost = 8 (8% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 422ms, Average = 80ms
Rone
13-10-2004, 20:52
Tracing route to 80-236-193-213-s3.fluxxnet.nl [213.193.236.80]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 8 ms 8 ms 7 ms 10.10.112.1
3 9 ms 5 ms 7 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge93.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.133]
4 30 ms 7 ms 7 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.13
3]
5 7 ms 8 ms 8 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
6 9 ms 9 ms 10 ms lee-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.185]
7 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms nth-bb-b-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.101]

8 19 ms 14 ms 18 ms pop-bb-a-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.14]

9 75 ms 57 ms 45 ms tele-ic-2-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.86]

10 15 ms 14 ms 16 ms ntl-gw.telecomplete.net [213.160.97.41]
11 21 ms 22 ms 22 ms trueserver-gw.telecomplete.net [213.160.97.58]
12 22 ms 21 ms 22 ms 80-236-193-213-s3.fluxxnet.nl [213.193.236.80]

Trace complete.

Still getting crappy pings it seems.
Or is everyone elses ok?
swoop101
13-10-2004, 21:08
Not here, mine are sweet since I threatened the servers :p: :D :cool: :rolleyes:

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 8 ms 3 ms 3 ms Soho Router [192.168.1.1]
2 31 ms 10 ms 10 ms 10.10.32.1
3 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge92.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.129]
4 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan63.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.137]
5 12 ms 13 ms 12 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
6 13 ms 12 ms 14 ms man-bb-a-so-700-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.193]
7 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
8 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
9 18 ms 20 ms 17 ms win-dc-a-v900.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.162]
10 22 ms 17 ms 19 ms www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]

Trace complete.
Rone
13-10-2004, 21:23
Maybe its just Dutch servers.
Will try our UK one tommorow night. ;)
Ignition
13-10-2004, 21:31
11 21 ms 22 ms 22 ms trueserver-gw.telecomplete.net [213.160.97.58]
12 22 ms 21 ms 22 ms 80-236-193-213-s3.fluxxnet.nl [213.193.236.80]

Trace complete.

Still getting crappy pings it seems.
Or is everyone elses ok?

What in the heavens, hell and all that is holy do you consider acceptable if 22ms to a Dutch server is too high? I ping close to that to default gateway on my DSL!

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms gatelock-corporate.inside.net [192.168.253.1]
2 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms x-modem.inside.net [10.0.0.2]
3 19 ms 21 ms 21 ms 82-197-73-6.hi-velocity.net [82.197.73.6]
-snip-
6 22 ms 23 ms 21 ms 82.197.95.254
7 32 ms 33 ms 31 ms lipex-ge.m20.trueserver.co.uk [193.109.219.95]
8 30 ms 31 ms 31 ms 80-236-193-213-s3.fluxxnet.nl [213.193.236.80]

Just have to keep consoling myself with the better download speeds I guess

Downstream 1871 Kbps (233.9 KB/sec) 2020 Kbps (inc. overheads)
Upstream 241 Kbps (30.1 KB/sec) 260 Kbps (inc. overheads)
Bill C
13-10-2004, 21:42
What in the heavens, hell and all that is holy do you consider acceptable if 22ms to a Dutch server is too high? I ping close to that to default gateway on my DSL!


That is what i was thinking as well. But there again we cannot please everyone can we :rolleyes:

Tracing route to 80-236-193-213-s3.fluxxnet.nl [213.193.236.80]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 10 ms 7 ms 8 ms 10.15.16.1
2 17 ms 6 ms 46 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge-wan52-121.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
2.213]
3 7 ms 9 ms 7 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.13
3]
4 9 ms 9 ms 20 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
5 9 ms 7 ms 9 ms lee-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.185]
6 11 ms 35 ms * nth-bb-b-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.101]
7 16 ms 20 ms 31 ms pop-bb-a-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.14]
8 28 ms 24 ms 35 ms tele-ic-2-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.86]
9 16 ms 16 ms 17 ms ntl-gw.telecomplete.net [213.160.97.41]
10 23 ms 22 ms 20 ms trueserver-gw.telecomplete.net [213.160.97.58]
11 23 ms 22 ms 22 ms 80-236-193-213-s3.fluxxnet.nl [213.193.236.80]
Paul
13-10-2004, 22:15
Still getting crappy pings it seems.
Or is everyone elses ok?What crappy ping would that be then :confused:

The trace you just posted is damn near perfect.
Florence
13-10-2004, 23:44
Rone you are complaining try mine to yours and just my PC running the kids are in bed.

Tracing route to fluxxnet.nl [213.193.236.4]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1
2 691 ms 251 ms 120 ms 10.11.32.1
3 350 ms 50 ms 11 ms oldh-t2cam1-b-ge-wan51-120.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
4.209]
4 40 ms 10 ms 10 ms mant-t2core-b-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
.169]
5 10 ms 120 ms 40 ms man-bb-b-so-210-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.184.61]
6 691 ms 1152 ms 821 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]

7 531 ms 400 ms 872 ms gfd-bb-b-so-500-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.130]

8 * 481 ms 340 ms tele-ic-2-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.74]

9 451 ms 340 ms 401 ms ntl-gw.telecomplete.net [213.160.97.41]
10 310 ms 70 ms 40 ms trueserver-gw.telecomplete.net [213.160.97.58]
11 491 ms 320 ms 101 ms oxygen.fluxxnet.nl [213.193.236.4]

Trace complete.
this one is to NTL has you a little worried and you are complaining..

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 192.168.0.1
2 * 60 ms 170 ms 10.11.32.1
3 611 ms 1122 ms 1292 ms oldh-t2cam1-b-ge-wan51-120.inet.ntl.com [80.5.16
4.209]
4 721 ms 190 ms 160 ms mant-t2core-b-ge-wan64.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
.181]
5 320 ms 120 ms 51 ms man-bb-b-so-130-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.22]

6 20 ms 10 ms 10 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]

7 20 ms 30 ms 40 ms win-dc-a-v900.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.162]
8 10 ms 20 ms 20 ms www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]

Trace complete.
mr-b
13-10-2004, 23:55
I'm having some strange problems over teh past few weeks with VPN connections intermittently dropping and happened to notice that my pings/traceroutes are looking rather abnormal - so wondered if this thread might be relevant. However I am in Warwickshire so feel free to throw me off this thread... ;-)

Although I'm loath to use ICMP as a tool to test networks, these traces definitely don't look like they used to.

Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms 10.156.143.254
3 11 ms 12 ms 11 ms brhm-t2cam1-a-v113.inet.ntl.com [213.106.228.73]
4 * * 97 ms brhm-t2core-a-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [213.106.231.61]
5 38 ms 10 ms 11 ms bir-bb-a-so-200-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.145]
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 * * 41 ms win-dc-a-v902.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.222]
9 * 50 ms 18 ms www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]

Trace complete.

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 10 ms 10 ms 11 ms brhm-t2cam1-a-v113.inet.ntl.com [213.106.228.73]
4 11 ms 12 ms 31 ms brhm-t2core-a-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [213.106.231.61]
5 10 ms 13 ms 17 ms bir-bb-a-so-200-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.145]
6 15 ms 12 ms 14 ms man-bb-b-so-700-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.134]
7 24 ms 21 ms 19 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]
8 * 31 ms 19 ms win-dc-a-v902.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.222]
9 * 18 ms 19 ms www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30]

Trace complete.

Pinging www.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.30] with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Reply from 62.253.162.30: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=247
Reply from 62.253.162.30: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=247
Reply from 62.253.162.30: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=247

Ping statistics for 62.253.162.30:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 20ms, Average = 19ms

Anyone any ideas?
Ignition
14-10-2004, 00:02
I've helped Kits with this and was proven to be kids PCs still connected to router uploading.

mr-b - a couple, PM me your IP addy so can confirm suspicions
Florence
14-10-2004, 00:13
I've helped Kits with this and was proven to be kids PCs still connected to router uploading.

mr-b - a couple, PM me your IP addy so can confirm suspicions
Thank you Ignition will talk tomorrow to the boy
th'engineer
14-10-2004, 11:43
Ignition have taken your advice and gone onto XP makes a change better routing through my routers
And not bad at SURE YOU WOULD AGREE ;)
Tracing route to www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.2.1
2 3 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.0.1
3 8 ms 9 ms 10 ms 10.23.48.1
4 11 ms 9 ms 10 ms oldh-t2cam1-a-ge910.inet.ntl.com [80.5.164.61]
5 18 ms 10 ms 10 ms mant-t2core-a-ge-wan62.inet.ntl.com [213.104.242
.41]
6 11 ms 9 ms 10 ms man-bb-a-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.184.57]
7 17 ms 10 ms 10 ms man-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.178]
8 17 ms 15 ms 15 ms win-bb-a-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.138]

9 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms win-dc-a-v903.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.34]
10 17 ms 16 ms 15 ms www.ntlworld.com (http://www.ntlworld.com) [62.253.162.30]

Trace complete.
Rone
14-10-2004, 14:37
Btw i'm not complaining, i am going off what was pointed out in game, a few french guys on the server said i was lagging. To be fair that server is usually a bit crap for the few brits in the clan.But its free. :) The dutch guys i was playing with said I looked ok on the server, but i did'nt do the test till after the match. So if your happy thats fine it gives me a yardstick to look at.
So if everything is now ok, can someone tell us what was fixed , as i,m assuming something was faulty?
Rone
14-10-2004, 18:10
Tracing route to ut.godsofchaos.com [213.230.200.165]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 8 ms 9 ms 6 ms 10.10.112.1
3 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms bagu-t2cam1-b-ge93.inet.ntl.com [80.5.162.133]
4 145 ms 12 ms 297 ms bagu-t2core-b-ge-wan63.inet.ntl.com [80.5.161.13
7]
5 9 ms 9 ms 8 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
6 14 ms 16 ms 15 ms ren-bb-a-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.161]

7 71 ms 25 ms 27 ms bre-bb-b-so-200-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.166]

8 27 ms 27 ms 27 ms bre-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.86]
9 26 ms 26 ms 25 ms redb-ic-1-so-010-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.106]

10 27 ms 27 ms 27 ms xpe.999.gi0-3.rt0.thdo.catalyst2.com [217.79.160
.108]
11 27 ms 27 ms 30 ms 213.230.200.165

Thats to our UK server, while empty and nothing running and its looking dodgy at hop 4 yet again unless i am reading it wrong.
Ignition
14-10-2004, 19:33
You're reading it wrong, so long as there is no lag behind the router reporting the high ping times there are no problems, the router was just busy doing other things, like routing ;) the hop after that router shows a very good ping time.

5 9 ms 9 ms 8 ms lee-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.29]
Rone
14-10-2004, 21:59
Great, i can stop being paranoid, thanks to all for the assistance.
scoper
15-10-2004, 19:17
Wish I could stop being paranoid! Still got major problems here. Traceroutes and pings all over the place. Don't really know what to do next...
Ignition
28-10-2004, 03:14
Scoper's issue has now been resolved.