Delay on ping - dslreports.com

republican-creole			Search:
	login · register

	All Forums		Hot Topics		Gallery

how-to block ads

Forums » US Cable Support » Road Runner » Delay on ping


Search Topic:	Uniqs: 525	Share Topic:	RSS topic:	toggle: flat / full normal / watch	Posting:	Post a:	Post a:

Links: ·Web page ·Network Status ·RR FORUM FAQ ·Cable Users FAQ ·Tweaks ·Broadband Modem

Slow Speeds in Cleveland, OH? » « [TWC] Slow Speeds and High Signal Levels
page: 1 · 2

Author

All Replies

punker
deleted by moderator
Premium
join:2004-06-21
Palmdale, CA
clubs:

·Time Warner VOIP

·RoadRunner Cable

Delay on ping

------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
i emailed them about this issuse but they want more data

(President
Time Warner Cable - NY and Los Angeles)

so if you ip starts with 98
it would be nice if you posted your pings to the servers and a tracert

ping -n 30 to do 30 pings

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 02:07:52 ·

K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH

What issue, please?

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 07:03:37 ·

whiteyonenh

join:2004-08-09
Keene, NH
clubs:

·RoadRunner Cable

reply to punker
I fail to see what the issue is? 90-108ms on the Virginia server is pretty damn good for coming from Cali. I'm in NH and average 70-80ms to a server I play HL2:Deathmatch on in Atlanta. My brother on DSL gets 20-30ms higher ping to the same server. If you realize what the distances are, and the latency that distance presents, thats not that bad of a ping. I play on some UK servers as well and get 110-130ms on them.

This is the ping statistics from where I live to the Virginia servers you're talking about.

Ping statistics for 69.31.15.70:
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 38ms, Average = 26ms

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 10:07:58 ·

jimbopalmer

join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS

reply to punker
I am assuming that you live in Palmdale CA, if you actually live on the east coast, I am full of it.
gig14-0.pldlca1-bsr3.socal.rr.com sure looks to be Palmdale.

209.123.109.175 appears to be near New York City.
Google maps says the shortest possible distance via roads is 2,747 miles, your ping goes both ways for 5,494 miles. The speed of light in a fiber optic cable is 111,600 miles a second. So the theoretical fastest time, if it was directly wired by the shortest path with no routers between them is 50 ms. You are averaging 1/2 the speed of light getting to 209.123.109.175

69.31.15.70 is near Washington DC, Google maps says it is 2,643 to it. Double that, and divide by 111,600 miles a second to get you best theoretically possible ping. 48 ms

In practice, the cabling may well go back to LA then up to San Jose, then Denver, St. Louis, DC, NYC. Lots of routers to slow things down and a less than optimal path. As such, I see no problem with your line that can't be solved by choosing nearer servers or proving Einstein wrong.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 10:36:40 ·

punker
deleted by moderator
Premium
join:2004-06-21
Palmdale, CA
clubs:

·Time Warner VOIP

·RoadRunner Cable

edit:
September 5th, @02:24PM

reply to jimbopalmer
Re: Delay on ping

said by jimbopalmer

:

I am assuming that you live in Palmdale CA, if you actually live on the east coast, I am full of it.
gig14-0.pldlca1-bsr3.socal.rr.com sure looks to be Palmdale.

209.123.109.175 appears to be near New York City.
Google maps says the shortest possible distance via roads is 2,747 miles, your ping goes both ways for 5,494 miles. The speed of light in a fiber optic cable is 111,600 miles a second. So the theoretical fastest time, if it was directly wired by the shortest path with no routers between them is 50 ms. You are averaging 1/2 the speed of light getting to 209.123.109.175

69.31.15.70 is near Washington DC, Google maps says it is 2,643 to it. Double that, and divide by 111,600 miles a second to get you best theoretically possible ping. 48 ms

In practice, the cabling may well go back to LA then up to San Jose, then Denver, St. Louis, DC, NYC. Lots of routers to slow things down and a less than optimal path. As such, I see no problem with your line that can't be solved by choosing nearer servers or proving Einstein wrong.

with

ip 98.148.247.2xx i get 78 to 83ms
ip 98.148.197.1xx 90 to 110ms (even in the dead of night 3am to 4 am)

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 14:22:55 ·

MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal

edit:
September 5th, @02:32PM

said by punker

:

ip 98.148.247.2xx i get 78 to 83ms
ip 98.148.197.1xx 90 to 110ms (even in the dead of night 3am to 4 am)

Pings alone don't indicate much, traceroutes are needed.

In your traceroutes where do you find the increase in latency happening? Do you have reverse traceroutes showing similar increases in latency?

Also a 10-20 ms increase in latency isn't much of a problem, it could simply be caused by a different data route, there has to be more of a customer impacting issue than that for just about any tech support from any company to really investigate the problem.

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 14:29:34 ·

punker
deleted by moderator
Premium
join:2004-06-21
Palmdale, CA
clubs:

·Time Warner VOIP

·RoadRunner Cable

edit:
September 5th, @03:57PM

Click for full size

let me see if i can get that working "ip" look's like someone took it :(

1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  DD-WRT [192.168.1.1]
  2    12 ms    13 ms     8 ms  cpe-98-148-208-1.socal.res.rr.com [98.148.208.1]
 
  3     8 ms    10 ms    11 ms  gig1-16.pldlca1-swt1.socal.rr.com [76.167.11.41]
 
  4    12 ms     8 ms     8 ms  cpe-76-167-11-105.socal.res.rr.com [76.167.11.10
5]
  5    10 ms    12 ms    13 ms  gig2-2.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.34]
  6    12 ms    13 ms    13 ms  prt22.vnnyca2-rtr2.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.13]
  7    22 ms    22 ms    21 ms  tge9-3.lamdca1-swt1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.52]
  8   106 ms    71 ms    29 ms  tge4-0-0.lsanca1-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.56]
 
  9     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 10    26 ms    25 ms    24 ms  te-3-1.car1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.71.104.149]
 11    25 ms    25 ms    23 ms  ae-2-3.bar1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.69.132.218]
 12    27 ms    34 ms    36 ms  ae-6-6.ebr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.136.202
]
 13    27 ms    34 ms    37 ms  ae-81-81.csw3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.137.1
0]
 14    27 ms    24 ms    22 ms  ae-33-89.car3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.68.20.13
3]
 15    34 ms    35 ms    34 ms  telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110
.222]
 16   101 ms   105 ms   101 ms  nyk-bb2-link.telia.net [80.91.252.166]
 17   103 ms   103 ms   104 ms  nyk-b3-link.telia.net [80.91.248.178]
 18   103 ms   103 ms   103 ms  netaccess-114875-nyk-b3.c.telia.net [213.248.83.
186]
 19   106 ms   102 ms   102 ms  0.e1-4.tbr1.mmu.nac.net [209.123.10.101]
 20   104 ms   103 ms   101 ms  0.e-1-1.tbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.17]
 21   105 ms   104 ms   103 ms  vlan804.esd1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.2]
 22   101 ms   105 ms   103 ms  www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]

found a "Working IP" 98.148.206.2xx

Tracing route to dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  DD-WRT [192.168.1.1]
  2    17 ms     8 ms    13 ms  cpe-98-148-192-1.socal.res.rr.com [98.148.192.1]
 
  3    11 ms     9 ms     8 ms  gig1-16.pldlca1-swt1.socal.rr.com [76.167.11.41]
 
  4    18 ms     8 ms     8 ms  cpe-76-167-11-105.socal.res.rr.com [76.167.11.10
5]
  5     9 ms    13 ms    12 ms  gig2-2.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.34]
  6    13 ms    12 ms    13 ms  prt32.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.21]
  7     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  8    34 ms    29 ms    17 ms  te-1-3.car1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.79.140.37]
  9    76 ms    95 ms    19 ms  ae-2-3.bar1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.69.132.218]
 10    31 ms    17 ms    21 ms  ae-6-6.ebr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.136.202
]
 11    27 ms    18 ms    18 ms  ae-81-81.csw3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.137.1
0]
 12    19 ms    20 ms    17 ms  ae-33-89.car3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.68.20.13
3]
 13    32 ms    28 ms    35 ms  telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110
.222]
 14    92 ms    86 ms    85 ms  nyk-bb1-link.telia.net [80.91.252.226]
 15    92 ms    85 ms    87 ms  nyk-b3-link.telia.net [80.91.250.9]
 16    84 ms    84 ms    85 ms  nac-112088-nyk-b3.c.telia.net [213.248.83.74]
 17    88 ms    84 ms    85 ms  0.e1-1.tbr1.ewr.nac.net [209.123.10.129]
 18    88 ms    84 ms    86 ms  0.e1-4.tbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.122]
 19    89 ms    85 ms    88 ms  vlan804.esd1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.2]
 20    88 ms    87 ms    88 ms  www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
4

boost does not work

now it does?

TTL 86400 is this normal?

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 14:36:40 ·

MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal

So far you've shown some inconclusive data.

Do all 98. addresses have issues or is it only certain 98. addresses? Is it only with certain paths, like the one to DSLR you've shown?

In the 2 traces you've shown the routing and latency is fine on RR's network and their upstream provider Level3's network, it just jumps when it hits Telia's network. Then again after Level3's network the path changes through Telia's network and Oac.net network. That's not something RR can control, but it may also not be the issue.

How do reverse traces look?

P.S. Do you realize that your first pic shows your IP 4 times and you only blocked 1 one them out?

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 15:53:53 ·

punker
deleted by moderator
Premium
join:2004-06-21
Palmdale, CA
clubs:

·Time Warner VOIP

·RoadRunner Cable

edit:
September 5th, @04:17PM

images do not load only 1/2 of them will

2008-09-05_1···1538.zip 1,056,318 bytes (ignore white lines)

said by MacLeech

:

So far you've shown some inconclusive data.

Do all 98. addresses have issues or is it only certain 98. addresses? Is it only with certain paths, like the one to DSLR you've shown?

less then 10% are fine

i had to renew 10 times to get one working one

only 50% of images load

»Edit This! -- Artify© Edition #199

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 16:00:32 ·

MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal

said by punker

:

less then 10% are fine

i had to renew 10 times to get one working one

1 of the 10 of the IPs YOU'VE received are "good".

Are all the addresses you've received in the same subnet or is that 1 address part of a different subnet?

Post the gateways of the "good" IPs and the gateways of "bad" IPs.

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 16:15:57 ·

punker
deleted by moderator
Premium
join:2004-06-21
Palmdale, CA
clubs:

·Time Warner VOIP

·RoadRunner Cable

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 16:40:40 ·

MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal

Yet to see a pattern here...

Good and bad IPs in the same subnets.

So is there a pattern to the traceroutes between good and bad IPs? Do the bad ones all go bad in the same spot? Do the bad ones have a different return route?

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 16:51:51 ·

punker
deleted by moderator
Premium
join:2004-06-21
Palmdale, CA
clubs:

·Time Warner VOIP

·RoadRunner Cable

edit:
September 5th, @05:16PM

yea same route

also did i forget to say Power boost does not even work that good with the BAD ip's (sometimes not at all)

1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  DD-WRT [192.168.1.1]
  2    13 ms    21 ms     9 ms  cpe-98-148-246-1.socal.res.rr.com [98.148.246.1]
 
  3     8 ms     8 ms     8 ms  gig1-16.pldlca1-swt1.socal.rr.com [76.167.11.41]
 
  4    11 ms     8 ms     8 ms  cpe-76-167-11-105.socal.res.rr.com [76.167.11.10
5]
  5    11 ms    11 ms     9 ms  gig2-2.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.34]
  6    13 ms    27 ms    12 ms  prt32.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.21]
  7     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  8    30 ms    18 ms    24 ms  te-1-3.car1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.79.140.37]
  9    17 ms    15 ms    18 ms  ae-2-3.bar1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.69.132.218]
 10    20 ms    29 ms    17 ms  ae-6-6.ebr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.136.202
]
 11    21 ms    17 ms    19 ms  ae-71-71.csw2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.137.6
]
 12    21 ms    17 ms    26 ms  ae-23-79.car3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.68.20.69
]
 13    30 ms    39 ms    30 ms  telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110
.222]
 14    85 ms    83 ms    84 ms  nyk-bb1-link.telia.net [80.91.252.226]
 15    98 ms    88 ms    90 ms  nyk-b3-link.telia.net [80.91.248.174]
 16    85 ms    87 ms    85 ms  nac-112088-nyk-b3.c.telia.net [213.248.83.74]
 17    89 ms    86 ms    87 ms  0.e1-4.tbr1.mmu.nac.net [209.123.10.101]
 18    88 ms    89 ms    85 ms  0.e-1-1.tbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.17]
 19    91 ms    86 ms    94 ms  vlan804.esd1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.2]
 20    87 ms    87 ms    84 ms  www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
 
Trace complete.

Tracing route to dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  DD-WRT [192.168.1.1]
  2    15 ms    13 ms    11 ms  cpe-98-148-192-1.socal.res.rr.com [98.148.192.1]
 
  3    11 ms    11 ms    13 ms  gig1-16.pldlca1-swt1.socal.rr.com [76.167.11.41]
 
  4    22 ms     8 ms    22 ms  cpe-76-167-11-105.socal.res.rr.com [76.167.11.10
5]
  5    16 ms    13 ms    12 ms  gig2-2.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.34]
  6    15 ms    13 ms    13 ms  prt32.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.21]
  7     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  8    20 ms    20 ms    18 ms  te-3-1.car1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.71.104.149]
  9    29 ms    17 ms    18 ms  ae-2-3.bar1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.69.132.218]
 10    25 ms    20 ms    32 ms  ae-6-6.ebr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.136.202
]
 11    19 ms    32 ms    19 ms  ae-81-81.csw3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.137.1
0]
 12    20 ms    22 ms    40 ms  ae-33-89.car3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.68.20.13
3]
 13    31 ms    44 ms    31 ms  telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110
.222] 
 14    99 ms    97 ms    97 ms  nyk-bb2-link.telia.net [80.91.252.166]
 15    96 ms    95 ms    99 ms  nyk-b3-link.telia.net [80.91.248.178]
 16    99 ms    96 ms   105 ms  netaccess-114875-nyk-b3.c.telia.net [213.248.83.
186]
 17    98 ms    96 ms    96 ms  0.e1-1.tbr1.ewr.nac.net [209.123.10.129]
 18    99 ms   101 ms   101 ms  0.e1-4.tbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.122]
 19    98 ms    97 ms    98 ms  vlan804.esd1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.2]
 20   102 ms    99 ms    99 ms  www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]

good

13 telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110

bad

13 telia-level3-ge.LosAngeles1.level3.net [4.68.110

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 17:02:36 ·

K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH

Please define working/nonworking, or good vs bad. I see nothing in the least of concern in the data you've posted.

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 17:17:16 ·

TWCHelp_random

@rr.com

reply to punker
well hey punker Road Runner aint perfect and you keep whining when your service is quite good for what i have in Austin and your pings are pretty damn good so be happy for what you have or go to something else and if you want to rant about it go and do it somewhere else. And when your trying to make a problem out of what is probably a problem on your machine or the site and not road runner in general.

to forum · permalink · 2008-09-05 19:18:31 ·

punker
deleted by moderator
Premium
join:2004-06-21
Palmdale, CA
clubs:

·Time Warner VOIP

·RoadRunner Cable

edit:
September 5th, @07:56PM

said by TWCHelp_random :

well hey punker Road Runner aint perfect and you keep whining when your service is quite good for what i have in Austin and your pings are pretty damn good so be happy for what you have or go to something else and if you want to rant about it go and do it somewhere else. And when your trying to make a problem out of what is probably a problem on your machine or the site and not road runner in general.

they had two people come out

it has been determined that the issues is on thier end as they tryed two notebook's and another modem (ambit)

and the pings with the AMBIT were Much Higher in the 150ms range

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 19:52:34 ·

jimbopalmer

join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS

reply to punker

said by punker

:

said by jimbopalmer

:

You are averaging 1/2 the speed of light getting to 209.123.109.175

As such, I see no problem with your line that can't be solved by choosing nearer servers or proving Einstein wrong.

with

ip 98.148.247.2xx i get 78 to 83ms
ip 98.148.197.1xx 90 to 110ms (even in the dead of night 3am to 4 am)

Speed of light is the same even in the early morning, yes.

I get the same trace route to you from MS at both IPs.

3 12ms 9ms 10ms gig3-2.gnwdms-rtr1.natsoe.rr.com [65.28.206.73]
4 27ms 28ms 27ms so-3-1-2-atlaga-rtr1.peakview.rr.com [65.28.206.49]
5 26ms 27ms 24ms ge-2-3-0.cr1.atl20.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.174]
6 27ms 29ms 27ms ae-0-0.cr0.atl20.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.34]
7 41ms 42ms 41ms ae-3-0.cr0.dfw10.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.36]
8 49ms 46ms 45ms ae-0-0.cr0.hou30.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.38]
9 83ms 79ms 79ms ae-3-0.cr0.lax30.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.0]
10 84ms 80ms 81ms 66.109.6.65
11 * 107ms 241ms tge9-4.vnnyca2-swt2.socal.rr.com [76.167.14.144]
12 166ms 89ms 273ms prt21.lsanca3-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.8]
13 116ms 197ms 192ms gig2-3.pldlca1-rtr1.socal.rr.com [76.167.2.35]
14 120ms 191ms 137ms cpe-76-167-11-65.socal.res.rr.com [76.167.11.65]
15 87ms 90ms 98ms port-channel1-pldlca1-swt5.socal.rr.com [76.167.11.106]
16 90ms 92ms 89ms gig14-0.pldlca1-bsr3.socal.rr.com [76.167.11.42]
17 * * * Request timed out.

said by punker

:

also did i forget to say Power boost does not even work that good with the BAD ip's

Powerboost will have NO effect on pings ever, just bandwidth, nothing 'fixes' latency.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 19:57:13 ·

MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal

edit:
September 5th, @09:01PM

reply to punker

said by punker

:

it has been determined that the issues is on thier end as they tryed two notebook's and another modem (ambit)

Right now it looks like the issue is beyond TWCs end and beyond TWCs upstream providers end, but it's difficult to tell without REVERSE traces from networks that show the issue.

to forum · permalink ·

· 2008-09-05 20:58:09 ·

-

Topic: Follow · Sitemark · Mark Unread

Forums » US Cable Support » Road Runner	Slow Speeds in Cleveland, OH? » « [TWC] Slow Speeds and High Signal Levels
page: 1 · 2


Tuesday, 02-Dec 08:04:19	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 9 years online! © 1999-2008 dslreports.com. page compression OFF

Most commented news this week
· [99] AT&T Metered Billing Trial Hits Second Market
· [71] UDP BitTorrent Will Destroy The Interwebs!
· [57] Comcast Tries To Slow Verizon's Philly Entry
· [17] FCC To Vote On Free National Wireless Broadband
· [14] Clearwire May Slow WiMax Build
· [8] Embarq Rejected Higher Offer
· [8] Hawaii Telecom Files For Bankruptcy
· [6] Monday Evening Links
· [0] Tuesday Morning Links

Most people now reading
· Is this a good thing for the net? [news,99366]
· Maintaince Tonight or tomorrow? [TekSavvy]
· Level 80 PVP gear info? [World of Warcraft]
· [WotLK] PVP gear at 80 [World of Warcraft]
· Best way to clean your screen [LCD] [General Questions]
· [Illico] Encore cette nuit... suis-je le seul ? [Videotron]
· Play .avi file on TV's DVD player? [Audio/Video Chat]
· Extjs grid combo box. [Webmasters and Developers]