Cool Ideas Fibre ISP – Feedback Thread 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheRoDent said:
@gool, @zoozi and @eddief1 and @CrypticZA

I want to play a game. :) (queue endless TP memes)

SpeederVPN​


I've decided to build something which I think is unique, but highly experimental.

It's a wireguard VPN (similar to what cloudflare WARP uses) that connects to a server in our UK datacentre. It features Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction, meaning that it mitigates packet loss by using 1.5 times the normal bandwidth which can be used to reconstruct lost packets.

VPN Access Page:
The service, and page is available to CISP customers only.

Note, this is highly experimental. Don't play an important game with this thing. It might break at any moment. It also won't improve your ping. Physics can't be beaten. In fact, the VPN and Reed-Solomon processing might add a few ms overhead. I haven't really tested.

I'd appreciate any feedback in this thread.
Click to expand...
Some basic pings shows me an increase in latency of ~20ms which is not great. It should be better.

I will try to debug that when I have time, but I'd appreciate some feedback on packet loss.
 
gool said:
I'm not crazy, this line is buggered...

2% incoming spike:
View attachment 1306414

19% outgoing loss spike:
View attachment 1306416
4% incoming loss spike,
177 packets lost in 6 minutes:
View attachment 1306418
7% incoming loss spike,
190 packets lost in 7 minutes:
View attachment 1306420
New session,
22% incoming loss spike:
View attachment 1306422
147 packets lost in 6.5 minutes:
View attachment 1306426
New session,
125 packets lost in 10 minutes:
View attachment 1306428

And yet...

Clean Pingplotter to Riot London

View attachment 1306502
Click to expand...
I have now tried Valorant with a Virtual Machine in the UK too, just sitting idling in a deathmatch. There's still packet loss. I really don't think we can do anymore. If you want, try the SpeederVPN, but realistically the packetloss is not something that we can control any further. And it's not your line. It's the general transit/internet/valorant servers.

We have debugged this issue for ~3weeks now, and there's not much more I can figure out.
 
TheRoDent said:
@gool, @zoozi and @eddief1 and @CrypticZA

I want to play a game. :) (queue endless TP memes)

SpeederVPN​


I've decided to build something which I think is unique, but highly experimental.

It's a wireguard VPN (similar to what cloudflare WARP uses) that connects to a server in our UK datacentre. It features Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction, meaning that it mitigates packet loss by using 1.5 times the normal bandwidth which can be used to reconstruct lost packets.

VPN Access Page:
The service, and page is available to CISP customers only.

Note, this is highly experimental. Don't play an important game with this thing. It might break at any moment. It also won't improve your ping. Physics can't be beaten. In fact, the VPN and Reed-Solomon processing might add a few ms overhead. I haven't really tested.

I'd appreciate any feedback in this thread.
Click to expand...

Ooh, sounds interesting. I'll give it a go this morning. I've come to the conclusion that some of the problem definitely lies with the Apex servers, but I also experience a tangible improvement when using CF Warp vs no VPN, so there is some room for something like this to help. Will feed back later with results.

@TheRoDent - is it necessary to use your Wireguard build, or can one just import the .conf into the official Wireguard client?

EDIT - nevermind I see the config runs your executable via Powershell, so clearly it requires your build.
 
So it doesn't seem to complete setting up the connection for me @TheRoDent . These appear to be the pertinent lines from the log. Perhaps the interface name WiFi?

Code: 
2022-06-15 08:37:08.696: [TUN] [cispuk122] Executing: `powershell -command "$wgInterface = Get-NetAdapter -Name %WIREGUARD_TUNNEL_NAME%; route add 0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 IF $wgInterface.ifIndex metric 1; Set-NetIPInterface -InterfaceIndex $wgInterface.ifIndex -InterfaceMetric 1; route add 10.124.0.0/23 0.0.0.0 IF $wgInterface.ifIndex;netsh int ip set interface interface=WiFi metric=100"`
2022-06-15 08:37:08.714: [TUN] [cispuk122] Sending handshake initiation to peer 1 (127.0.0.1:51821)
2022-06-15 08:37:08.879: [TUN] [cispuk122] Receiving handshake response from peer 1 (127.0.0.1:51821)
2022-06-15 08:37:08.879: [TUN] [cispuk122] Keypair 1 created for peer 1
2022-06-15 08:37:10.036: [TUN] [cispuk122] cmd>  OK!
2022-06-15 08:37:10.712: [TUN] [cispuk122] cmd>  OK!
2022-06-15 08:37:10.739: [TUN] [cispuk122] cmd> The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.
2022-06-15 08:37:10.739: [TUN] [cispuk122] cmd>
2022-06-15 08:37:10.739: [TUN] [cispuk122] cmd>
2022-06-15 08:37:10.767: [TUN] [cispuk122] Command error exit status: 1
2022-06-15 08:37:10.767: [TUN] [cispuk122] An error occurred while running a configuration script command: A generic command executable returned a result that indicates failure.
2022-06-15 08:37:10.801: [TUN] [cispuk122] Shutting down
2022-06-15 08:37:10.802: [MGR] [cispuk122] Tunnel service tracker finished

Also a note to others - this appears to uninstall your current Wireguard client. Your .conf files should still be safe though.
 
TheRoDent said:
@gool, @zoozi and @eddief1 and @CrypticZA

I want to play a game. :) (queue endless TP memes)

SpeederVPN​


I've decided to build something which I think is unique, but highly experimental.

It's a wireguard VPN (similar to what cloudflare WARP uses) that connects to a server in our UK datacentre. It features Reed-Solomon Forward Error Correction, meaning that it mitigates packet loss by using 1.5 times the normal bandwidth which can be used to reconstruct lost packets.

VPN Access Page:
The service, and page is available to CISP customers only.

Note, this is highly experimental. Don't play an important game with this thing. It might break at any moment. It also won't improve your ping. Physics can't be beaten. In fact, the VPN and Reed-Solomon processing might add a few ms overhead. I haven't really tested.

I'd appreciate any feedback in this thread.
Click to expand...
Thanks, will give it a go this evening since i am in the office today.

I am a fan of the CISP VPN but sadly it breaks Apex now, i can't ready up for lobbies so basically can't use it anymore.
 
TheRoDent said:
I have now tried Valorant with a Virtual Machine in the UK too, just sitting idling in a deathmatch. There's still packet loss. I really don't think we can do anymore. If you want, try the SpeederVPN, but realistically the packetloss is not something that we can control any further. And it's not your line. It's the general transit/internet/valorant servers.

We have debugged this issue for ~3weeks now, and there's not much more I can figure out.
Click to expand...
My one uninformed question then is: How come Vox/Telkom ISP's on Openserve don't have the issue?
What is it about those ISP's that circumvent the packet loss if you say there's issues even off a VM in London? Surely there would be a big uproar in the UK if UK players were having packet loss?
 
Last edited:
Any ideas? Just imported the conf file and ran it.
2022-06-15 10:16:54.491: [TUN] [cispuk127] Starting WireGuard/0.5.3 (Windows 10.0.19044; amd64)
2022-06-15 10:16:54.491: [TUN] [cispuk127] Watching network interfaces
2022-06-15 10:16:54.493: [TUN] [cispuk127] Resolving DNS names
2022-06-15 10:16:54.493: [TUN] [cispuk127] Creating network adapter
2022-06-15 10:16:54.550: [TUN] [cispuk127] Using existing driver 0.10
2022-06-15 10:16:54.557: [TUN] [cispuk127] Creating adapter
2022-06-15 10:16:54.801: [TUN] [cispuk127] Using WireGuardNT/0.10
2022-06-15 10:16:54.801: [TUN] [cispuk127] Executing: `powershell -command "ps speederv2 -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue |kill -PassThru; Start-Process -NoNewWindow 'C:\Program Files\CoolSpeeder\speederv2.exe' '-c -l 0.0.0.0:51821 -r 154.0.5.28:51821'`
2022-06-15 10:16:54.748: [TUN] [cispuk127] Interface created
2022-06-15 10:16:55.258: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd>
2022-06-15 10:16:55.260: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> Handles NPM(K) PM(K) WS(K) CPU(s) Id SI ProcessName
2022-06-15 10:16:55.260: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> ------- ------ ----- ----- ------ -- -- -----------
2022-06-15 10:16:55.261: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> 86 10 16392 14248 0,03 18788 0 speederv2
2022-06-15 10:16:55.436: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd>
2022-06-15 10:16:55.436: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd>
2022-06-15 10:16:55.451: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> The Winsock 2.2 dll was found okay, _setmaxstdio() was set to 4000
2022-06-15 10:16:55.451: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> [2022-06-15 10:16:55][INFO]argc=6 C:\Program Files\CoolSpeeder\speederv2.exe -c -l 0.0.0.0:51821 -r 154.0.5.28:51821
2022-06-15 10:16:55.451: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> [2022-06-15 10:16:55][INFO]parsing address: 0.0.0.0:51821
2022-06-15 10:16:55.451: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> [2022-06-15 10:16:55][INFO]its an ipv4 adress
2022-06-15 10:16:55.451: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> [2022-06-15 10:16:55][INFO]ip_address is {0.0.0.0}, port is {51821}
2022-06-15 10:16:55.451: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> [2022-06-15 10:16:55][INFO]parsing address: 154.0.5.28:51821
2022-06-15 10:16:55.451: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> [2022-06-15 10:16:55][INFO]its an ipv4 adress
2022-06-15 10:16:55.451: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> [2022-06-15 10:16:55][INFO]ip_address is {154.0.5.28}, port is {51821}
2022-06-15 10:16:55.451: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> [2022-06-15 10:16:55][INFO]jitter_min=0 jitter_max=0 output_interval_min=0 output_interval_max=0 fec_timeout=8 fec_mtu=1250 fec_queue_len=200 fec_mode=0
2022-06-15 10:16:55.451: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> [2022-06-15 10:16:55][INFO]fec_str=20:10
2022-06-15 10:16:55.451: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> [2022-06-15 10:16:55][INFO]fec_inner_parameter=1:10,2:10,3:10,4:10,5:10,6:10,7:10,8:10,9:10,10:10,11:10,12:10,13:10,14:10,15:10,16:10,17:10,18:10,19:10,20:10
2022-06-15 10:16:55.452: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> [2022-06-15 10:16:55][INFO]now listening at 0.0.0.0:51821
2022-06-15 10:16:55.468: [TUN] [cispuk127] Enabling firewall rules
2022-06-15 10:16:55.471: [TUN] [cispuk127] Dropping privileges
2022-06-15 10:16:55.471: [TUN] [cispuk127] Setting interface configuration
2022-06-15 10:16:55.471: [TUN] [cispuk127] Peer 1 created
2022-06-15 10:16:55.473: [TUN] [cispuk127] Monitoring MTU of default v6 routes
2022-06-15 10:16:55.473: [TUN] [cispuk127] Interface up
2022-06-15 10:16:55.476: [TUN] [cispuk127] Setting device v6 addresses
2022-06-15 10:16:55.482: [TUN] [cispuk127] Monitoring MTU of default v4 routes
2022-06-15 10:16:55.483: [TUN] [cispuk127] Setting device v4 addresses
2022-06-15 10:16:55.491: [TUN] [cispuk127] Executing: `powershell -command "$wgInterface = Get-NetAdapter -Name %WIREGUARD_TUNNEL_NAME%; route add 0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 IF $wgInterface.ifIndex metric 1; Set-NetIPInterface -InterfaceIndex $wgInterface.ifIndex -InterfaceMetric 1; route add 10.124.0.0/23 0.0.0.0 IF $wgInterface.ifIndex;netsh int ip set interface interface=WiFi metric=100"`
2022-06-15 10:16:55.513: [TUN] [cispuk127] Sending handshake initiation to peer 1 (127.0.0.1:51821)
2022-06-15 10:16:55.687: [TUN] [cispuk127] Receiving handshake response from peer 1 (127.0.0.1:51821)
2022-06-15 10:16:55.687: [TUN] [cispuk127] Keypair 1 created for peer 1
2022-06-15 10:16:57.375: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> OK!
2022-06-15 10:16:58.389: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> OK!
2022-06-15 10:16:58.455: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd> The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.
2022-06-15 10:16:58.455: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd>
2022-06-15 10:16:58.455: [TUN] [cispuk127] cmd>
2022-06-15 10:16:58.508: [TUN] [cispuk127] Command error exit status: 1
2022-06-15 10:16:58.509: [TUN] [cispuk127] An error occurred while running a configuration script command: A generic command executable returned a result that indicates failure.
2022-06-15 10:16:58.601: [TUN] [cispuk127] Shutting down
2022-06-15 10:16:58.607: [MGR] [cispuk127] Tunnel service tracker finished
Click to expand...

1655280961689.png
 
grantduke said:
True :ROFL:
Click to expand...
Also with this double speed from Vuma it puts our cost price more or less in line with Frogfoot and Octotel's 100/100 package - only comparison i have done too lazy to look at the rest

We pay for a 50/50 what you guys pay for a scuffed 100/100 which is down most weeks...
 
CrypticZA said:
I think if Frogfoot were to increase speeds their network would fall apart even more...
Click to expand...

"Objective accomplished! Our clients are so happy our network is actually up, they're not even thinking about pricing!"
 
I know people have been complaining for years about RIOT packet loss and it's not only us in South Africa.
 
Seeyou said:
It's far less noticeable / problematic with low latency.
Click to expand...
A small amount perhaps, but with near constant 1-10% up/down spikes and several hundred packets lost in any match mode during the really bad times for all of UK server players? Doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X