Status
Not open for further replies.

blunt

Expert Member
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
2,310
things looking good today

Code:
Testing from Cool Ideas Service Provider (Pty) Ltd (155.93.224.XXX)...
Retrieving speedtest.net server list...
Selecting best server based on ping...
Hosted by Vodafone UK (London) [9670.62 km]: 177.081 ms
Testing download speed................................................................................
Download: 65.63 Mbit/s
Testing upload speed................................................................................................
Upload: 64.36 Mbit/s
MTN (CPT N.Subs) 50/50
 

TheRoDent

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,405
For me if I switch to Vox it streams perfectly, so I know this is a CISP issue.

@TheRoDent Seems to still be issues as my latency is all over the place when pinging overseas.

View attachment 621644
We're on a new interface with Openserve but we haven't received confirmation that our rate limits have been upgraded correctly yet.

From the firsthop variable latency on 192.168.11.6 which is the other side of our handoff, this appears to still be the case. Am following up again today.
 

TheRoDent

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,405
We have disabled our SACS transit again, since Angola Cables just cannot manage to seem to get it right to not advertise our routes to Europe via SACS which causes some return traffic to flow from Europe, via the USA and then SACS causing increased latency to certain EU networks.

Unfortunately this means that Brazilian and US game servers etc are going to have regular latency again.
 

Praeses

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
4,766
We have disabled our SACS transit again, since Angola Cables just cannot manage to seem to get it right to not advertise our routes to Europe via SACS which causes some return traffic to flow from Europe, via the USA and then SACS causing increased latency to certain EU networks.

Unfortunately this means that Brazilian and US game servers etc are going to have regular latency again.
That's too bad :(

Any way in the future for CISP to fix this? I believe it was mentioned that you want to have a POP set up there?
 

Phinix

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
952
We're on a new interface with Openserve but we haven't received confirmation that our rate limits have been upgraded correctly yet.

From the firsthop variable latency on 192.168.11.6 which is the other side of our handoff, this appears to still be the case. Am following up again today.
Thanks for the update. I assumed it had all been fixed yesterday.
 

TheRoDent

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,405
Thanks man got some latency issues at night from around 6pm/7pm with packet loss as well
Your ticket indicates latency and loss to the firsthop (but you did not provide an IP address).

Openserve routers do not prioritise ICMP packets, and may drop them. The real question is whether you have increased latency and loss to IP's within our network.

Perhaps add 154.0.0.1 to your monitoring and see.
 

TranQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
126
@TheRoDent
Something seriously wrong tonight, did Netstream decide to break the internet?



|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| 192.168.0.1 - 0 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 154.0.0.113 - 6 | 17 | 16 | 9 | 13 | 16 | 12 |
| 154.0.4.193 - 6 | 17 | 16 | 9 | 13 | 16 | 12 |
| 154.0.2.33 - 6 | 17 | 16 | 9 | 14 | 17 | 12 |
| 154.0.5.147 - 0 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 14 | 17 | 17 |
| 197.96.214.112 - 6 | 17 | 16 | 13 | 17 | 24 | 13 |
| core1b-dock-ten-0-4-3-0.ip.isnet.net - 16 | 13 | 11 | 190 | 192 | 199 | 199 |
| be20.asr01.thn.as20860.net - 0 | 20 | 20 | 180 | 185 | 188 | 187 |
| po201.dc9core1.as20860.net - 16 | 13 | 11 | 190 | 194 | 201 | 197 |
| 94.zone.4.r.dc9.redstation.co.uk - 6 | 17 | 16 | 0 | 199 | 216 | 194 |
| queen.cisp.co.za - 16 | 13 | 11 | 192 | 194 | 196 | 196 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider

C:\Users\main>C:\Users\main\Desktop\iperf-3.1.3-win64\iperf3.exe iperf3 --verbose --port 17001 -c queen.cisp.co.za --bandwidth 18M -l 1400 --omit 2 -R -u
iperf 3.1.3
Time: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:42:06 GMT
Connecting to host queen.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host queen.cisp.co.za is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.0.105 port 52703 connected to 62.233.65.195 port 17001
Starting Test: protocol: UDP, 1 streams, 1400 byte blocks, omitting 2 seconds, 10 second test
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 1.90 MBytes 15.9 Mbits/sec 0.423 ms 249/1671 (15%) (omitted)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 1.86 MBytes 15.6 Mbits/sec 0.272 ms 209/1604 (13%) (omitted)
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 1.87 MBytes 15.7 Mbits/sec 0.282 ms 206/1608 (13%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 1.86 MBytes 15.6 Mbits/sec 0.363 ms 214/1607 (13%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 1.89 MBytes 15.9 Mbits/sec 0.370 ms 189/1607 (12%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 1.83 MBytes 15.4 Mbits/sec 0.317 ms 236/1609 (15%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 1.88 MBytes 15.8 Mbits/sec 0.355 ms 193/1603 (12%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 1.81 MBytes 15.2 Mbits/sec 0.401 ms 257/1611 (16%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 1.87 MBytes 15.7 Mbits/sec 0.277 ms 201/1604 (13%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 1.90 MBytes 15.9 Mbits/sec 0.276 ms 189/1609 (12%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 1.75 MBytes 14.7 Mbits/sec 0.276 ms 299/1608 (19%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 1.93 MBytes 16.2 Mbits/sec 0.277 ms 165/1607 (10%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 22.0 MBytes 18.4 Mbits/sec 0.392 ms 2192/16388 (13%)
[ 4] Sent 16388 datagrams
CPU Utilization: local/receiver 5.1% (1.3%u/3.8%s), remote/sender 0.2% (0.0%u/0.2%s)

iperf Done.
 
Last edited:

image132

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
1,077
@TheRoDent I don't know if you guys have a suggestion box somewhere but I'd like to make one.

On your website under the "network status" page or the announcements page can you please allow us to filter messages by FNO? I mean its nice you guys allow us to filter by month but that's not all that useful to me. However not having to scroll through the mountain of Vumatel messages to try and find my single Octotel one would be incredible.
 
Last edited:

ArtyLoop

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
6,120
Can I ask a silly question here please:
I'm just looking around here because this is an interesting exercise in how to deal with problematic companies that don't care, you know which one I am talking about, Octotel.

Has anything been done to resolve the problem in Blouberg? I see it has all gone quiet. I see lots of feedback about other problematic fibre providers but precious little about Octotel.
 

PBCool

Cool Ideas
Company Rep
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
5,850
@TheRoDent I don't know if you guys have a suggestion box somewhere but I'd like to make one.

On your website under the "network status" page or the announcements page can you please allow us to filter messages by FNO? I mean its nice you guys allow us to filter by month but that's not all that useful to me. However not having to scroll through the mountain of Vumatel messages to try and find my single Octotel one would be incredible.
This will be revamped soon to accommodate this kind of thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top