Print

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

[craigski]

How come I see private IP addresses (10.x.x.x) on some of posts above showing the routes to the servers you are testing against?

[EC300]

How come I see private IP addresses (10.x.x.x) on some of posts above showing the routes to the servers you are testing against?

As I understand it then it is because at those points we are routed over someones internal network and see the private IP address returned in the ICMP as the sender address.

[Alex Atkin UK]

As I understand it then it is because at those points we are routed over someones internal network and see the private IP address returned in the ICMP as the sender address.

Yeah its confusing, but routers on the Internet don't need to have a public IP address, they just need to know where to send the packet on next to reach the destination.

Its actually surprising this isn't done more, as its an easy way to avoid wasting public addresses within your backbone network and I'd imagine adds a level of security as there is no way to address that router directly from outside their network.

Actually its possible it IS more common, just those routers are configured to not reduce the TTL so will be invisible to traceroutes.  A lot of consumer routers used to do this so your first hop was always the ISP, your local router would not be shown.  I assume it fell out of fashion as seeing if your home router is the cause of latency is useful to know, especially if you're using WiFi.

[craigski]

Yeah its confusing, but routers on the Internet don't need to have a public IP address, they just need to know where to send the packet on next to reach the destination.

Yes confusing, as there is no reverse lookup for private IP. How do you know who owns that private IP, where it is located, etc?

eg from one of the traceroutes above:

Code: [Select]

  5     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  10.1.10.77
  6     9 ms    41 ms    12 ms  10.106.66.255
  7     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  8     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  9     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 10   110 ms   109 ms   110 ms  10.1.10.19
 11   100 ms   100 ms    99 ms  10.1.10.80
 12   110 ms   131 ms   110 ms  185.245.80.0
The above tells me that starting at 10.1.10.19 there may be some congestion, but where/what is 10.1.10.19 ?

Wouldn't it be better to test against servers that have a network path that use known registered networks, rather than going via an 'unknown' network?

[Alex Atkin UK]

Yes confusing, as there is no reverse lookup for private IP. How do you know who owns that private IP, where it is located, etc?

You don't, but likewise you have no idea how many routers you are going over that are invisible due to not incrementing the TTL or where those not responding to ping are located.

Actually one thing I don't understand is how we get a ping response in a traceroute from a router on a private network address?

[Chrysalis]

Iperf seems a bit weird, e.g. using it on windows the cwnd wont go above 256k, and throughput is very low as a result, but then grabbing a file of ftp on same server came down at 800mbit with a much larger cwnd.  I think it might be struggling with modern network stacks.

[bogof]

Iperf seems a bit weird, e.g. using it on windows the cwnd wont go above 256k, and throughput is very low as a result, but then grabbing a file of ftp on same server came down at 800mbit with a much larger cwnd.  I think it might be struggling with modern network stacks.

Iperf on Windows is I think maybe compiled using Cygwin, perhaps that's an issue?

[Ixel]

I don't know if anyone here is still suffering some kind of an issue (congestion?) but for comparison about 10 minutes ago I did a traceroute as well. Fine here to Clouvider London.

Code: [Select]

Tracing route to lon.speedtest.clouvider.net [5.180.211.133]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  home.router [x.x.x.x]
  2     4 ms     4 ms     4 ms  mythicbeasts.router [x.x.x.x]
  3     4 ms     4 ms     4 ms  lo.router-sov-aggr-b.mythic-beasts.com [93.93.133.13]
  4     5 ms     5 ms     4 ms  172.16.3.4
  5     4 ms     4 ms     4 ms  172.16.2.0
  6     4 ms     5 ms     4 ms  lo.router-sov-a.mythic-beasts.com [93.93.133.0]
  7     5 ms     5 ms     5 ms  linx-lon1.eq-ld8.peering.clouvider.net [195.66.225.184]
  8    21 ms    40 ms    47 ms  no-ptr.local [10.1.10.148]
  9     5 ms     5 ms     5 ms  no-ptr.local [10.1.10.69]
 10     6 ms     5 ms     6 ms  no-ptr.local [10.106.66.255]
 11     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 12     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 13     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 14     7 ms     5 ms    11 ms  no-ptr.local [10.1.10.19]
 15     6 ms     6 ms     6 ms  no-ptr.local [10.1.10.80]
 16     5 ms     5 ms     5 ms  185.245.80.0
 17     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 18     6 ms     4 ms     5 ms  5.180.211.133

Recent result from my automated route optimiser:

Code: [Select]

IP Address:       5.180.211.133
Preferred Route:  Not Set

Upstream Name           Packets Recvd   Avg Latency (ms)        Jitter (ms)
UK Dedicated Servers    6               6                       0
Misaka Networks         6               6                       0
Mythic Beasts           6               5                       0
The Constant Company    6               5                       0

Last Queried: 2022-11-04 19:10:58

Also from my Lightning Fibre IP address:

Code: [Select]

#  ADDRESS         LOSS  SENT  LAST     AVG  BEST  WORST  STD-DEV  STATUS                       
 1                  100%     4  timeout                                                           
 2                  100%     3  timeout                                                           
 3  194.24.162.40   0%       3  4.3ms    4.1  3.9   4.3    0.2                                   
 4  194.24.162.1    0%       3  4.1ms    3.9  3.4   4.3    0.4                                   
 5  195.66.225.184  0%       3  4.7ms    4.7  4.6   4.8    0.1                                   
 6  10.1.10.148     0%       3  4.6ms    4.6  4.5   4.6    0        <MPLS:L=704,E=0 L=21,E=0,T=1>
 7  10.1.10.69      0%       3  3.9ms    4.9  3.9   6.1    0.9      <MPLS:L=1278,E=0 L=21,E=0,T=2>
 8  10.106.66.255   0%       3  4ms      4.4  4     4.6    0.3                                   
 9                  100%     3  timeout                                                           
10                  100%     3  timeout                                                           
11                  100%     3  timeout                                                           
12  10.1.10.19      0%       3  4.9ms    5.2  4.9   5.7    0.4      <MPLS:L=263,E=0 L=20,E=0,T=1>
13  10.1.10.80      0%       3  5ms      5    4.9   5.1    0.1      <MPLS:L=19,E=0 L=20,E=0,T=2> 
14  185.245.80.0    0%       3  4.6ms    4.5  3.9   4.9    0.4                                   
15                  100%     3  timeout                                                           
16  5.180.211.133   0%       3  4.7ms    4.6  4.5   4.7    0.1


[XGS_Is_On]

[Alex Atkin UK]

I've been of the opinion for a while that Ubiquiti aren't great with software, given their reputation of launching devices full of bugs and taking a few years for the firmware to stabalise.

Of course the simple answer could be they aren't letting you properly turn off IPS and DPI, or are configuring it poorly internally causing more overhead than necessary.

Also it seems their management app is still Java based, which is going to waste a ton of resources (posted on their forum).

Code: [Select]

6891 1778 902   S  4284m 107% 20% /usr/bin/java <- This is the Java process in a IDLE UDM.
Ive also seen claims of them using much cheaper board designs than their competitors, though not sure if/how that would reduce performance, just potentially impact reliability.

[bogof]

[Alex Atkin UK]

Yeah but the power consumption on those N5105 boxes and how dirt-cheap they are is great for up to 2.5Gbit.  Not sure where they top-out on PPP though.

Having a full PC box that can be powered over PoE is really nice.

[bogof]

Yeah but the power consumption on those N5105 boxes and how dirt-cheap they are is great for up to 2.5Gbit.  Not sure where they top-out on PPP though.

Having a full PC box that can be powered over PoE is really nice.

They do look pretty neat.  I see the CPU isn't that bad, 4000 all /1400 single core.  I wonder where the limits are with PPPoE, I understand they're different with BSD v Linux.  I've always used OpenWRT in the past when rolling my own routers, but I am intrigued by OPNsense etc.
 

[bogof]

@skyeci ran a windows box and a linux box against my AWS test servers, the Windows iperf3 did top out just below 200Mbps again, but Linux was line rate for the London cubic server, marginally below for the London BBR, and 632/772 for Frankfurt cubic / BBR respectively.  Nice results from Zen FTTP BTW, it obviously can work great   Shame it didn't work out for me. 

[Chrysalis]

Ixel still over 100ms here, they seem to have transit issues. 

For the benefit of this thread, bogof has now managed to get decent speeds on a download from one of my linux hetzner servers.  Likewise I got my performance over 800 on it as well.