Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[guest]

Remember once upon a time I had a very dodgy Zen connection with latency in the thousands of milliseconds whenever traffic was put on the line?

Well look what I've found :

Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.251.202]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.16.2
  2     1 ms     1 ms     1 ms  192.168.1.1
  3    21 ms    20 ms    20 ms  btdhg558-hg2.ealing.broadband.bt.net [217.47.133.201]
  4    21 ms    19 ms    20 ms  217.47.133.161
  5    21 ms    20 ms    20 ms  217.47.133.234
  6    26 ms    21 ms    20 ms  217.47.219.34
  7    21 ms    21 ms    20 ms  217.41.168.25
  8    21 ms    21 ms    21 ms  217.41.168.66
  9    22 ms    21 ms    21 ms  217.41.168.78
 10    21 ms    21 ms    20 ms  217.41.168.54
 11    21 ms    20 ms    20 ms  217.47.87.113
 12    23 ms    22 ms    21 ms  core2-pos1-0-0-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.121]
 13    22 ms    21 ms    22 ms  core1-pos5-0-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.122]
 14    22 ms    21 ms    22 ms  194.74.65.6
 15    23 ms    27 ms    22 ms  212.58.238.129
 16    23 ms    22 ms    21 ms  212.58.239.58
 17    22 ms    23 ms    23 ms  www2.telhc.bbc.co.uk [212.58.251.202]

Trace complete.


Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.253.73]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.16.2
  2     1 ms     1 ms     1 ms  192.168.1.1
  3  2286 ms  2410 ms     *     btdhg558-hg2.ealing.broadband.bt.net [217.47.133.201]
  4  2021 ms  1985 ms  2270 ms  217.47.133.130
  5  2388 ms  2060 ms  1943 ms  217.47.133.238
  6  2412 ms  2527 ms     *     217.47.219.34
  7  2385 ms     *     2051 ms  217.41.168.25
  8  2342 ms  2503 ms     *     217.41.168.66
  9  2082 ms  2316 ms  2505 ms  217.41.168.78
 10  2036 ms  1989 ms  2269 ms  217.41.168.46
 11  2507 ms  2035 ms  1967 ms  217.47.70.114
 12  2413 ms  2502 ms  2363 ms  core2-pos1-0-0-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.121]
 13  2011 ms  2013 ms  2316 ms  core1-pos5-0-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.122]
 14  2528 ms  2536 ms  2036 ms  194.74.65.6
 15  2226 ms  2362 ms  2490 ms  212.58.238.129
 16  1964 ms  2106 ms  2523 ms  te12-1.hsw0.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.222]
 17  2503 ms  2059 ms  2011 ms  www4.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.253.73]

Trace complete.


Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.253.73]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.16.2
  2     1 ms     1 ms     1 ms  192.168.1.1
  3    20 ms    20 ms    20 ms  btdhg558-hg2.ealing.broadband.bt.net [217.47.133.201]
  4    20 ms    20 ms    19 ms  217.47.133.162
  5    22 ms    21 ms    20 ms  217.47.133.238
  6   116 ms   212 ms    72 ms  217.47.219.34
  7    21 ms    20 ms    20 ms  217.41.168.25
  8    20 ms    21 ms    21 ms  217.41.168.66
  9    21 ms    21 ms    21 ms  217.41.168.78
 10    22 ms    21 ms    21 ms  217.41.168.46
 11    20 ms    20 ms    21 ms  217.47.70.114
 12    22 ms    22 ms    22 ms  core2-pos1-0-0-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.121]
 13    21 ms    21 ms    22 ms  core1-pos5-0-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.122]
 14    21 ms    21 ms    21 ms  194.74.65.6
 15    23 ms    21 ms    21 ms  212.58.238.129
 16    24 ms    23 ms    23 ms  te12-1.hsw0.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.222]
 17    25 ms    24 ms    23 ms  www4.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk [212.58.253.73]

Trace complete.

The middle trace was taken while downloading part of SP3 with the line maxed out at 60kB/s or so. Totally repeatable.

This line is an original 512kbps engineer install. I'm not kidding. There is a Voyager 240 somewhere but nobody knows where Basically there's some old Telkonet ethernet over mains setup with a load of switches (ancient ones) providing local ethernet ports. This arrangement goes throughout the building(s) so the router could quite literally be anywhere. Ditto master socket. Nobody has a scooby

The line has 14.5dB downstream attenuation and 11dB upstream. Noise margins indicate that the router is probably on an extension (deep joy) but even so this line is capable of much more than 512kbps. The exchange has Be and UKO present.

The hunt goes on

[kitz]

Good luck playing Hunt the Router.

Hmmm  Interesting traces - same exchange as yours?

Old 512kb account never upgraded - Therefore possible early adapter and possible same DSLAM?  Although I thought you had a lift and shift or could Zen not get them to do that in the end?.  As mentioned to you in eons ago some old DSLAMs couldnt cope very well with differentation of services, but most (if not all) were supposed to have been upgraded by BT.

And if anyone wonders what rizla is on about the latency is much higher than you would normally expext to see despite the line maxing out and an ongoing problem that he had until he moved to LLU.   

As a comparison this is a tracert
1) Without downloading

Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     8 ms    99 ms    99 ms  192.168.1.254
  2     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  3    19 ms    18 ms    17 ms  10.1.2.1
  4    15 ms    15 ms    15 ms  83.245.126.93
  5    15 ms    15 ms    15 ms  212.58.238.129
  6    15 ms    14 ms    14 ms  rdirwww-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131]

2) Whilst maxing a line out at 23.75 Mbps*

Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    36 ms   103 ms    99 ms  192.168.1.254
  2     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  3     *        *       52 ms  10.1.2.1
  4    39 ms    43 ms    45 ms  83.245.126.93
  5    39 ms    37 ms    42 ms  212.58.238.129
  6    53 ms    42 ms    41 ms  rdirwww-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131]





*No thats not a mistake - I just downloaded 6.29 GB in 4 minutes. 

[guest]

Different exchange.

6.29GB in 4 minutes? I think you mixed up bytes and bits

[mr_chris]

Have to say it does sound more like 6.29 GigaBITS downloaded in 4 minutes. Although we did work out one time that Kitz can download about 2GB in 10 minutes, which is still very impressive!

Probably just a simple mistake like the totals in DU meter being set to Bits rather than Bytes... and Kitz glancing at them whilst typically doing 20 other things!

[kitz]

>> 6.29GB in 4 minutes? I think you mixed up bytes and bits

Sorry probably my mistake - I took the download from Grabbit as to how long it took to download a pile of files whilst performing the traces.  I didnt really want the files so didnt keep them, so possibly was Gb. 
Bear in mind I only had 1 hour sleep last night since I had to get up at 3am to take the brat to the station... and Ive been up since then

But for sure and without a doubt the 23.75 Mbps shown on DUMeter was definite.
I think my jaw still drops at my download speeds... and I can still sync at  24Mbps... will see what happens though when I go for Annex M

[guest]

I'm not entirely sure how fast my line goes - about 2.1MB/sec I think, but I can run it at 100MB/minute with no appreciable increase in latency, which is what I'm interested in. 100MB/min is a convenient figure too

The line that currently has "latency on demand" looks better than mine so assuming that we ever find the master socket(s) I think one Be/O2 line and one UKO line would provide the desired performance/resilience.

[kitz]

>> The line that currently has "latency on demand" looks better than mine so assuming that we ever find the master socket(s) I think one Be/O2 line and one UKO line would provide the desired performance/resilience.

and also assuming that no-one has made any weird settings in the router QoS...  but yeah if its looking like a repeat of what you saw, then probably so.

[guest]

Does the Voyager 240 have any QoS? I can't tell if it does or not as it wants a username/password for most of the web interface.

[kitz]

I'm not 100% certain, but iirc the 240 is the "4 port wired only" version of the 210/2100/2110/2091 family of Voyagers all based on the same/similar broadcom chipset. 
Therefore its very likely to have QoS as the others do available from the web interface.  This family of router also has quite a powerful (but unfortunately undocumented by Voyager) CLI ... even more so if you telnet into the busybox shell.

[kitz]

>> it wants a username/password for most of the web interface

Just a thought...  This trick isnt guaranteed to work - but it is something I noticed that sometimes occurs with the 2100 ilks and could possibly be a quirk in one of the firmware versions but its worth a try if you can already access the line stats.

Rather than use Advanced from the left hand side of the menu - which definitely will ask to you input the username and passy again. 
See on the center of the page in the RightHand Frame theres a link there that says "Click Advanced...|Status"
For some reason on the 210/2100s it doesnt ask for UN confirmation if you go via that link.


----
PS should also add, just in case they havent changed it.
Default Username = Admin
Password = Admin  or Password.

[guest]

Ta for that but it doesn't matter now.

I was warned about this lot but I chose not to listen (much) - basically they have a long history of not paying their bills, so I'm not returning until they pay me what they currently owe. That's unlikely to happen so its game over I think.

There wasn't a left hand side of the menu - it was just a simple menu list with the various options on it. No frames at all from what I remember so perhaps its ancient firmware (I couldn't get to anything that would tell me a version). I tried all the usual suspects for factory default username/password combos so perhaps someone once had a clue?

More worrying (for them) is that there's a SBS2k3 box somewhere too. Yes that's right they don't know where that is either

[Ezzer]

Otherwise Rizla I was going to say if you could lay your hands a mole and get an idea of distance. otherwise I see Maplin do tone set and amp. Or if you had to go back, I have done this using a Cat and Genny 
Got some funny looks but then got , how did you find that when it was hidden there ?

[guest]

Heh I did give passing consideration to borrowing some TDR kit but it wouldn't help due to the ethernet over mains stuff which is everywhere. It must have cost more than simply wiring the place up with CAT5 as there's some fairly chunky looking kit (running on 10A breakers!)

Oh well I suspect its someone else's problem now

[kitz]

>> basically they have a long history of not paying their bills, so I'm not returning until they pay me what they currently owe.

 

[mr_chris]

there's some fairly chunky looking kit (running on 10A breakers!)

Ouch.. imagine that going wrong and hitting every desktop in the office with 10A of mains power! Would be an interesting light show (and a rather smelly one!!!)