Nottingham Core......crumbling?
14-02-2006, 20:46
|
#1
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 2,004
|
Nottingham Core......crumbling?
Code:
Microsoft Windows [Version 5.2.3790]
(C) Copyright 1985-2003 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 213.251.146.93
Tracing route to 213.251.146.93 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 3 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1
2 33 ms 89 ms 32 ms 10.153.175.254
3 30 ms * 39 ms nott-t2cam1-a-v129.inet.ntl.com [80.4.47.165]
4 297 ms 995 ms 142 ms nott-t2core-a-ge-wan72.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.61]
5 26 ms 29 ms 45 ms nott-t2core-b-ge-wan91.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.2]
6 33 ms 25 ms 38 ms nth-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.37]
7 39 ms 35 ms 34 ms nth-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.117]
8 35 ms 53 ms 47 ms gfd-bb-b-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.98]
9 36 ms 48 ms 40 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.138]
10 57 ms 59 ms 41 ms sw1.tc.lon [195.66.224.220]
11 56 ms 53 ms 59 ms rdb-1-m2.routers.ovh.net [213.186.32.15]
12 77 ms 62 ms 57 ms 213.251.146.93
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 213.251.146.93
Tracing route to 213.251.146.93 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 21 ms 39 ms 79 ms 10.153.175.254
3 16 ms 32 ms 25 ms nott-t2cam1-a-v129.inet.ntl.com [80.4.47.165]
4 53 ms 54 ms 37 ms nott-t2core-a-ge-wan72.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.61]
5 47 ms 48 ms 36 ms nott-t2core-b-ge-wan91.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.2]
6 45 ms 32 ms 44 ms nth-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.37]
7 42 ms 38 ms 42 ms nth-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.117]
8 49 ms 48 ms * gfd-bb-b-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.98]
9 52 ms 45 ms 52 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.138]
10 95 ms 78 ms 74 ms sw1.tc.lon [195.66.224.220]
11 86 ms 114 ms 94 ms rdb-1-m2.routers.ovh.net [213.186.32.15]
12 61 ms 62 ms 69 ms 213.251.146.93
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 213.251.146.93
Tracing route to 213.251.146.93 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms 1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 22 ms 36 ms 72 ms 10.153.175.254
3 45 ms 65 ms * nott-t2cam1-a-v129.inet.ntl.com [80.4.47.165]
4 27 ms 47 ms 21 ms nott-t2core-a-ge-wan72.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.61]
5 757 ms 20 ms 605 ms nott-t2core-b-ge-wan91.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.2]
6 55 ms 31 ms 42 ms nth-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.37]
7 54 ms 36 ms 48 ms nth-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.117]
8 27 ms 26 ms 36 ms gfd-bb-b-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.98]
9 51 ms 17 ms 35 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.138]
10 83 ms 71 ms 108 ms sw1.tc.lon [195.66.224.220]
11 91 ms 84 ms 86 ms rdb-1-m2.routers.ovh.net [213.186.32.15]
12 69 ms 80 ms 75 ms 213.251.146.93
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 213.251.146.93
Tracing route to 213.251.146.93 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms 1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 41 ms * 27 ms 10.153.175.254
3 177 ms 158 ms 153 ms nott-t2cam1-a-v129.inet.ntl.com [80.4.47.165]
4 847 ms * 60 ms nott-t2core-a-ge-wan72.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.61]
5 22 ms 41 ms 36 ms nott-t2core-b-ge-wan91.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.2]
6 28 ms 38 ms 34 ms nth-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.37]
7 38 ms 33 ms 29 ms nth-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.117]
8 52 ms 69 ms 33 ms gfd-bb-b-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.98]
9 44 ms 31 ms * redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.138]
10 172 ms * 162 ms sw1.tc.lon [195.66.224.220]
11 * 86 ms 93 ms rdb-1-m2.routers.ovh.net [213.186.32.15]
12 107 ms 94 ms 132 ms 213.251.146.93
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 213.251.146.93
Tracing route to 213.251.146.93 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 16 ms 41 ms 66 ms 10.153.175.254
3 61 ms 142 ms 149 ms nott-t2cam1-a-v129.inet.ntl.com [80.4.47.165]
4 462 ms 272 ms 110 ms nott-t2core-a-ge-wan72.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.61]
5 76 ms 55 ms 53 ms nott-t2core-b-ge-wan91.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.2]
6 44 ms 41 ms 47 ms nth-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.37]
7 39 ms 42 ms 48 ms nth-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.117]
8 48 ms 49 ms 53 ms gfd-bb-b-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.98]
9 39 ms 22 ms 38 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.138]
10 63 ms 71 ms 57 ms sw1.tc.lon [195.66.224.220]
11 106 ms 74 ms * rdb-1-m2.routers.ovh.net [213.186.32.15]
12 54 ms 58 ms 78 ms 213.251.146.93
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 213.251.146.93
Tracing route to 213.251.146.93 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 76 ms 74 ms 111 ms 10.153.175.254
3 49 ms 30 ms 37 ms nott-t2cam1-a-v129.inet.ntl.com [80.4.47.165]
4 38 ms 43 ms 64 ms nott-t2core-a-ge-wan72.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.61]
5 39 ms 33 ms 28 ms nott-t2core-b-ge-wan91.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.2]
6 34 ms * 58 ms nth-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.37]
7 40 ms 48 ms 48 ms nth-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.117]
8 48 ms 46 ms 46 ms gfd-bb-b-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.98]
9 42 ms 39 ms 37 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.138]
10 88 ms 98 ms * sw1.tc.lon [195.66.224.220]
11 96 ms 83 ms 155 ms rdb-1-m2.routers.ovh.net [213.186.32.15]
12 70 ms 96 ms 73 ms 213.251.146.93
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>
People from my area seem to be lagging, lossing on games, variable pings. Anybody finding the same problems?
ps I've forgotten the switch for amount of pings ;o
|
|
|
|
14-02-2006, 20:59
|
#2
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28
|
Re: Nottingham Core......crumbling?
well my modem is crashing tooooooo often, but i have the 120 so phoning up for a tech to come out and he will i guess "sort out the power levels" till i crash it again and get the 250 modem <_<
|
|
|
|
|
14-02-2006, 21:37
|
#3
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Loughborough
Services: 10MB BB (although it's sometimes only 2MB)
Posts: 87
|
Re: Nottingham Core......crumbling?
It's not just you. I'm in Loughborough and am having f***ing awful problems tonight. The Leicester side is exactly the same... I've already been onto CS about it. I can't browse very well, and gaming well just forget it, I can connect to a server for about 30secs before the high pings get me kicked off...
I've got an engineer coming on Thursday to hopefully replace this pain in the ass Terayon C/M. What's the betting that it doesn't clear the packet loss problem though...
|
|
|
|
|
14-02-2006, 21:55
|
#4
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 2,004
|
Re: Nottingham Core......crumbling?
Yeah the constant packet loss problem seems to be across the board, I know people with a 250, 120 and surfboard 4100 and all have pl.
So people may be able to get good speeds even with the pl, can browse unnoticeably, but thats just the constant pushing of bandwidth along, not the rapid reliable response games require :/
Maybe somebody around ntl is aware but are simply not bothered. Look at the Amsterdam issue, I can't remember the last time nl servers gave me 0 pl, which they always used to, its shows as 15-25 on cs all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2006, 01:14
|
#5
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 2,004
|
Re: Nottingham Core......crumbling?
Comparable traces now -
Code:
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 213.251.146.93
Tracing route to 213.251.146.93 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 8 ms 7 ms 11 ms 10.153.175.254
3 11 ms 28 ms 11 ms nott-t2cam1-a-v129.inet.ntl.com [80.4.47.165]
4 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms nott-t2core-a-ge-wan72.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.61]
5 15 ms 16 ms 16 ms nott-t2core-b-ge-wan91.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.2]
6 13 ms 11 ms 11 ms nth-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.37]
7 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms nth-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.117]
8 16 ms 18 ms 15 ms gfd-bb-b-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.98]
9 17 ms 20 ms 17 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.138]
10 33 ms 33 ms 31 ms sw1.tc.lon [195.66.224.220]
11 44 ms 33 ms 33 ms rdb-1-m2.routers.ovh.net [213.186.32.15]
12 32 ms 35 ms 30 ms 213.251.146.93
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 213.251.146.93
Tracing route to 213.251.146.93 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 8 ms 7 ms 9 ms 10.153.175.254
3 10 ms 9 ms 11 ms nott-t2cam1-a-v129.inet.ntl.com [80.4.47.165]
4 10 ms 11 ms 13 ms nott-t2core-a-ge-wan72.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.61]
5 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms nott-t2core-b-ge-wan91.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.2]
6 14 ms 12 ms 12 ms nth-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.37]
7 12 ms 13 ms 13 ms nth-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.117]
8 29 ms 15 ms 15 ms gfd-bb-b-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.98]
9 18 ms 37 ms 17 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.138]
10 31 ms 48 ms 31 ms sw1.tc.lon [195.66.224.220]
11 33 ms 38 ms 33 ms rdb-1-m2.routers.ovh.net [213.186.32.15]
12 35 ms 32 ms 31 ms 213.251.146.93
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 213.251.146.93
Tracing route to 213.251.146.93 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 7 ms 11 ms 8 ms 10.153.175.254
3 65 ms 118 ms 24 ms nott-t2cam1-a-v129.inet.ntl.com [80.4.47.165]
4 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms nott-t2core-a-ge-wan72.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.61]
5 19 ms 19 ms 16 ms nott-t2core-b-ge-wan91.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.2]
6 12 ms 11 ms 13 ms nth-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.37]
7 19 ms 25 ms 12 ms nth-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.117]
8 16 ms 17 ms 15 ms gfd-bb-b-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.98]
9 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.138]
10 * 51 ms 203 ms sw1.tc.lon [195.66.224.220]
11 30 ms 34 ms 32 ms rdb-1-m2.routers.ovh.net [213.186.32.15]
12 32 ms 33 ms 32 ms 213.251.146.93
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 213.251.146.93
Tracing route to 213.251.146.93 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 19 ms 7 ms 8 ms 10.153.175.254
3 66 ms 151 ms 119 ms nott-t2cam1-a-v129.inet.ntl.com [80.4.47.165]
4 11 ms 11 ms 10 ms nott-t2core-a-ge-wan72.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.61]
5 17 ms 15 ms 16 ms nott-t2core-b-ge-wan91.inet.ntl.com [80.1.79.2]
6 11 ms 13 ms 11 ms nth-bb-b-so-300-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.37]
7 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms nth-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.117]
8 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms gfd-bb-b-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.98]
9 16 ms 18 ms 15 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.138]
10 40 ms 31 ms 34 ms sw1.tc.lon [195.66.224.220]
11 34 ms 32 ms 31 ms rdb-1-m2.routers.ovh.net [213.186.32.15]
12 33 ms 33 ms 30 ms 213.251.146.93
Trace complete.
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2006, 01:59
|
#6
|
|
Dr Pepper Addict
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nottingham
Age: 61
Services: Flextel SIP : Sky Mobile : Sky Q TV : VM BB (1000 Mbps) : Aquiss FTTP (330 Mbps)
Posts: 27,730
|
Re: Nottingham Core......crumbling?
Your original traces seemed to suggest a problem between hops 3 & 4 rather than the core (which I believe would be your link into Nottingham).
__________________
 Baby, I was born this way.
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2006, 08:18
|
#7
|
|
Permanently Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South-East London
Age: 45
Services: Depends who's being serviced :p
Posts: 2,588
|
Re: Nottingham Core......crumbling?
Actually I'd say his original traces suggest more local problems to uBR:
2 33 ms 89 ms 32 ms 10.153.175.254
2 21 ms 39 ms 79 ms 10.153.175.254
2 22 ms 36 ms 72 ms 10.153.175.254
2 41 ms * 27 ms 10.153.175.254
2 16 ms 41 ms 66 ms 10.153.175.254
2 76 ms 74 ms 111 ms 10.153.175.254
All over the place.
In the wee hours the issue disappears:
2 8 ms 7 ms 11 ms 10.153.175.254
2 8 ms 7 ms 9 ms 10.153.175.254
2 7 ms 11 ms 8 ms 10.153.175.254
2 19 ms 7 ms 8 ms 10.153.175.254
Note that with those traces even though the transport and core routers, cam and core, still ping higher intermittently this is expected behaviour from a router running BGP and it doesn't affect the ping times to the end destination.
As far as this fault goes I'd either say there were capacity issues there, either it's a temporary loss of capacity or your upstream / downstream are busy. I'd guess upstream looking at the packet loss, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2006, 09:05
|
#8
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Loughborough
Services: 10MB BB (although it's sometimes only 2MB)
Posts: 87
|
Re: Nottingham Core......crumbling?
I gave up with everything last night. I couldn't work at all 
I lost count the amount of times that my modem lost connection. I think that there must have been major problems last night that they didn't want to admit. I phoned CS and they said that all was OK, no problems in my area... Yeah right!!!
Only good thing about it was that I've managed to get an engineer to come out Thurs to replace my modem... 
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2006, 20:44
|
#9
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Services: Gig1, Hub 5
Posts: 12,040
|
Re: Nottingham Core......crumbling?
I am surprised noone has picked up on 195.66.224.220
Although you the first person who can compete against me for been on a crappy ubr, the 195.66.224.220 router is defenitly the main problem concerning the packet loss.
Tracing route to 213.251.146.93 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 13 ms 40 ms 11 ms UBR [10.8.143.254]
2 23 ms 119 ms 36 ms leic-t2cam1-a-ge914.inet.ntl.com [82.3.35.149]
3 36 ms 7 ms 9 ms leic-t2core-a-ge-220-0.inet.ntl.com [82.3.33.10
4 30 ms 13 ms 50 ms lee-bb-a-so-220-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.188.110]
5 12 ms 24 ms 11 ms nth-bb-b-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.101]
6 15 ms 12 ms 22 ms nth-bb-a-ae0-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.117]
7 16 ms 40 ms 18 ms gfd-bb-b-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.98]
8 21 ms 19 ms 18 ms redb-ic-1-as0-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.174.138]
no packet loss up to this point just fluctuations
9 121 ms 128 ms * sw1.tc.lon [195.66.224.220]
10 123 ms 124 ms 123 ms rdb-1-m1.routers.ovh.net [213.251.130.14]
11 124 ms 105 ms 104 ms 213.251.146.93
hop 9 onwards consistent 100+ ms and some packet loss.
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2006, 20:50
|
#10
|
|
Dr Pepper Addict
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nottingham
Age: 61
Services: Flextel SIP : Sky Mobile : Sky Q TV : VM BB (1000 Mbps) : Aquiss FTTP (330 Mbps)
Posts: 27,730
|
Re: Nottingham Core......crumbling?
Looks to me like that router just doesn't respond to ping requests when it's busy. The times beyond it seem ok.
__________________
Baby, I was born this way.
|
|
|
|
|
16-02-2006, 17:40
|
#11
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Services: Gig1, Hub 5
Posts: 12,040
|
Re: Nottingham Core......crumbling?
nah they not ok if you see further up the thread the normal latency for the last hop is 30ms so the 100ms jump carried through.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:38.
|
Join CF
You are here: 
