Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ignition
Sorry to say this but Bill C, who I assume you are referring to, is not a network engineer, nor do broadband engineers maintain and service the local networks in the North West..
|
Wonder if it will be network engineers or the broadband engineers contracted out next.
First they came for the CSrs and no one complained then they came fot the Service engineers/techs who next .
Contracting out does not work unless its
controlled properley and thats from someone who works in an industry that has done in many times.
Contractors just take the money for the least work then sting you for extra work that you forgot to specify at large bucks rates.
Not contract staff are better value and will do more fot the £ if managed correctly
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ignition
You missed a 102ms spike in hop 3, a 71ms and a 29ms variation in hop 4, a 40ms spike to hop 5, a 28ms spike to hop 6, a 114ms spike to hop 7 and coloured a 21ms response in hop 8 but missed a 24ms one.
If this was done via wireless to your USR router try it wired instead or check signal for variations, alternatively supply something a little more concrete as far as proof of this affecting service, I note no packet loss to end destination indicating no ongoing packet loss and just drops to routers here and there.
Some variation with regard to latency is sadly an inevitable part of speed upgrades, and aspects of the upgrades aren't complete anywhere in the country. When all is done this might well stabilise your service.
Alternatively follow standard troubleshooting procedures for yourself and start calling directors of ntl  .. |
Thank you for the correction not perfect all the time
just wanted to check it was not a "local issue" before starting normal procedures
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ignition
Code:
Packets Pings
Hostname %Loss Rcv Snt Last Best Avg Worst
4. tele-ic-1-ge-200-205.inet.ntl.com 0% 51 51 1 0 2 10
5. nth-bb-b-so-600-0.inet.ntl.com 0% 51 51 6 3 6 26
6. lee-bb-a-so-600-0.inet.ntl.com 0% 51 51 6 6 10 74
7. lee-bb-b-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com 0% 51 51 10 6 11 61
8. man-bb-a-so-700-0.inet.ntl.com 0% 50 50 10 7 9 32
9. glfd-bam-1-atm403-1.inet.ntl.com 0% 50 50 8 7 9 24
10. oldh-t2cam1-a-ge-wan32.inet.ntl.com 0% 50 50 9 7 12 73
11. ubr01roch.inet.ntl.com 2% 49 50 10 8 10 15
--- ubr01roch.inet.ntl.com ping statistics ---
100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 8.090/10.302/15.299/1.504 ms
Looks like the baby is deprioritising rather than having a genuine issue.
Might be a local fault, however people are all in generally different networks with no real crossover points at the *access* level.
Core level appears at a very casual inspection to be ok.
|
Any other checks suggested please specify
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill C
Those readings are not great but there not that bad . ?
Those readings are not great but there not that bad . ?
|
Suggestions on improving them appreciated
