Status
Not open for further replies.

TheRoDent

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,405
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.
The Blouberg backhaul was upgraded, and it seems to have resolved matters for a lot of people. You're next in line for the blackbox probe so I can provide solid evidence.
 

blacklung

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
112
The Blouberg backhaul was upgraded, and it seems to have resolved matters for a lot of people. You're next in line for the blackbox probe so I can provide solid evidence.
@TheRoDent
Maybe also send one my way as well... ( CISP -Octotel 100/100 Wedtbeach

here isiperf results ( not completely horrendous like some ive seen posted ) but it tends to tie in with my other monitoring that shows continuous packet loss.
iperf3 --verbose --port 17001 -c trcvmh01.cisp.co.za --bandwidth 80M -l 1400 --omit 2 -R -u
iperf 3.0.12
Linux roxy1 2.6.32-754.9.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Dec 6 08:02:15 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Time: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:12:18 GMT
Connecting to host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za is sending
Cookie: roxy1.1550736738.418600.30a122820e6c
[ 4] local 102.132.254.248 port 39658 connected to 154.0.15.181 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 9.63 MBytes 80.8 Mbits/sec 0.102 ms 211/7423 (2.8%) (omitted)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.115 ms 0/7143 (0%) (omitted)
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 8.74 MBytes 73.3 Mbits/sec 0.121 ms 384/7142 (5.4%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 79.9 Mbits/sec 0.107 ms 0/7137 (0%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.1 Mbits/sec 0.094 ms 0/7149 (0%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.103 ms 0/7143 (0%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.124 ms 0/7140 (0%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.119 ms 0/7141 (0%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.095 ms 0/7145 (0%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.145 ms 0/7141 (0%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.1 Mbits/sec 0.113 ms 0/7147 (0%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.119 ms 0/7143 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 95.8 MBytes 80.3 Mbits/sec 0.074 ms 595/71450 (0.83%)
[ 4] Sent 71450 datagrams
CPU Utilization: local/receiver 8.4% (1.3%u/7.2%s), remote/sender 1.7% (0.0%u/1.7%s)

iperf Done.

The first Graph ( Server A: ) is my FTTH connection. Others are just for comparison. Would expect FTTH connection to show way less Loss than a DSL ( Server B )
1550737629549.png
 

TheRoDent

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,405
@TheRoDent
Maybe also send one my way as well... ( CISP -Octotel 100/100 Wedtbeach

here isiperf results ( not completely horrendous like some ive seen posted ) but it tends to tie in with my other monitoring that shows continuous packet loss.
iperf3 --verbose --port 17001 -c trcvmh01.cisp.co.za --bandwidth 80M -l 1400 --omit 2 -R -u
iperf 3.0.12
Linux roxy1 2.6.32-754.9.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Dec 6 08:02:15 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Time: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:12:18 GMT
Connecting to host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za is sending
Cookie: roxy1.1550736738.418600.30a122820e6c
[ 4] local 102.132.254.248 port 39658 connected to 154.0.15.181 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 9.63 MBytes 80.8 Mbits/sec 0.102 ms 211/7423 (2.8%) (omitted)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.115 ms 0/7143 (0%) (omitted)
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 8.74 MBytes 73.3 Mbits/sec 0.121 ms 384/7142 (5.4%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 79.9 Mbits/sec 0.107 ms 0/7137 (0%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.1 Mbits/sec 0.094 ms 0/7149 (0%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.103 ms 0/7143 (0%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.124 ms 0/7140 (0%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.119 ms 0/7141 (0%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.095 ms 0/7145 (0%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.145 ms 0/7141 (0%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.1 Mbits/sec 0.113 ms 0/7147 (0%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.119 ms 0/7143 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 95.8 MBytes 80.3 Mbits/sec 0.074 ms 595/71450 (0.83%)
[ 4] Sent 71450 datagrams
CPU Utilization: local/receiver 8.4% (1.3%u/7.2%s), remote/sender 1.7% (0.0%u/1.7%s)

iperf Done.

The first Graph ( Server A: ) is my FTTH connection. Others are just for comparison. Would expect FTTH connection to show way less Loss than a DSL ( Server B )
View attachment 622540
Yeah the iperf looks actually pretty good compared to others, and a bit of loss is expected now and again.

The graphs, are they ICMP/Ping based ? Which tool?

Again, the thing with ICMP is that it eats router CPU resources, which means that routers sometimes drop, or delay ICMP replies.

Most routers have an ICMP rate limit of 10.

I've disabled rate limits on the CPT access routers now, let's see if it changes anything for you.
 

blacklung

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
112
Yeah the iperf looks actually pretty good compared to others, and a bit of loss is expected now and again.

The graphs, are they ICMP/Ping based ? Which tool?

Again, the thing with ICMP is that it eats router CPU resources, which means that routers sometimes drop, or delay ICMP replies.

Most routers have an ICMP rate limit of 10.

I've disabled rate limits on the CPT access routers now, let's see if it changes anything for you.
Thanks for the reply, appreciate the feedback.

Graphs are based on ICMP/ping.
basically grpahs outputs from ( fping -C 25 -B1 -t1000 -r1 -p 500 -s 154.0.0.246 ).
Will keep eye on it and revert.
 

image132

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
1,078
@TheRoDent
Maybe also send one my way as well... ( CISP -Octotel 100/100 Wedtbeach

here isiperf results ( not completely horrendous like some ive seen posted ) but it tends to tie in with my other monitoring that shows continuous packet loss.
iperf3 --verbose --port 17001 -c trcvmh01.cisp.co.za --bandwidth 80M -l 1400 --omit 2 -R -u
iperf 3.0.12
Linux roxy1 2.6.32-754.9.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Dec 6 08:02:15 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Time: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:12:18 GMT
Connecting to host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za is sending
Cookie: roxy1.1550736738.418600.30a122820e6c
[ 4] local 102.132.254.248 port 39658 connected to 154.0.15.181 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 9.63 MBytes 80.8 Mbits/sec 0.102 ms 211/7423 (2.8%) (omitted)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.115 ms 0/7143 (0%) (omitted)
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 8.74 MBytes 73.3 Mbits/sec 0.121 ms 384/7142 (5.4%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 79.9 Mbits/sec 0.107 ms 0/7137 (0%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.1 Mbits/sec 0.094 ms 0/7149 (0%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.103 ms 0/7143 (0%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.124 ms 0/7140 (0%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.119 ms 0/7141 (0%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.095 ms 0/7145 (0%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.145 ms 0/7141 (0%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.1 Mbits/sec 0.113 ms 0/7147 (0%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.119 ms 0/7143 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 95.8 MBytes 80.3 Mbits/sec 0.074 ms 595/71450 (0.83%)
[ 4] Sent 71450 datagrams
CPU Utilization: local/receiver 8.4% (1.3%u/7.2%s), remote/sender 1.7% (0.0%u/1.7%s)

iperf Done.

The first Graph ( Server A: ) is my FTTH connection. Others are just for comparison. Would expect FTTH connection to show way less Loss than a DSL ( Server B )
Hope CISP has ordered lots of black boxes :ROFL:
 

Praeses

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
4,766
@TheRoDent
Maybe also send one my way as well... ( CISP -Octotel 100/100 Wedtbeach

here isiperf results ( not completely horrendous like some ive seen posted ) but it tends to tie in with my other monitoring that shows continuous packet loss.
iperf3 --verbose --port 17001 -c trcvmh01.cisp.co.za --bandwidth 80M -l 1400 --omit 2 -R -u
iperf 3.0.12
Linux roxy1 2.6.32-754.9.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Dec 6 08:02:15 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Time: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:12:18 GMT
Connecting to host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za is sending
Cookie: roxy1.1550736738.418600.30a122820e6c
[ 4] local 102.132.254.248 port 39658 connected to 154.0.15.181 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 9.63 MBytes 80.8 Mbits/sec 0.102 ms 211/7423 (2.8%) (omitted)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.115 ms 0/7143 (0%) (omitted)
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 8.74 MBytes 73.3 Mbits/sec 0.121 ms 384/7142 (5.4%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 79.9 Mbits/sec 0.107 ms 0/7137 (0%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.1 Mbits/sec 0.094 ms 0/7149 (0%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.103 ms 0/7143 (0%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.124 ms 0/7140 (0%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.119 ms 0/7141 (0%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.095 ms 0/7145 (0%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 9.53 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.145 ms 0/7141 (0%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.1 Mbits/sec 0.113 ms 0/7147 (0%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 9.54 MBytes 80.0 Mbits/sec 0.119 ms 0/7143 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 95.8 MBytes 80.3 Mbits/sec 0.074 ms 595/71450 (0.83%)
[ 4] Sent 71450 datagrams
CPU Utilization: local/receiver 8.4% (1.3%u/7.2%s), remote/sender 1.7% (0.0%u/1.7%s)

iperf Done.

The first Graph ( Server A: ) is my FTTH connection. Others are just for comparison. Would expect FTTH connection to show way less Loss than a DSL ( Server B )
My iperf tests also normally results in ~0.8% loss on my 20/20 Frogfoot line, but I don't have any speed issues, so I'm not complaining about it. Are you seeing degraded performance?
 

ginggs

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Super Moderator
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
11,367
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.
Why not ask in the Octotel thread that you started?
 

jannier

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,083
Most routers have an ICMP rate limit of 10.

I've disabled rate limits on the CPT access routers now, let's see if it changes anything for you.
@TheRoDent

How about this then? I recall our conversation in PM last week, so should the disabling of the rate limits have any effect on my 2nd hop in bold?

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| router.lan - 0 | 72 | 72 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 155.93.252.1 - 0 | 72 | 72 | 2 | 6 | 30 | 30 |
| 154.0.1.125 - 0 | 72 | 72 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 154.0.1.13 - 0 | 72 | 72 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| cloudflare.ixp.capetown - 0 | 72 | 72 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| one.one.one.one - 0 | 72 | 72 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider



C:\iperf>iperf3 --verbose --port 17001 -c trcvmh01.cisp.co.za --bandwidth 180M -l 1400 --omit 2 -R -u
iperf 3.1.3
CYGWIN_NT-10.0 JANNIE-PC 2.5.1(0.297/5/3) 2016-04-21 22:14 x86_64
Time: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 10:33:35 GMT
Connecting to host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za is sending
Cookie: JANNIE-PC.1550745215.415373.12dbc296
[ 4] local 192.168.88.252 port 58867 connected to 154.0.15.181 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 21.7 MBytes 182 Mbits/sec 0.024 ms 476/16701 (2.9%) (omitted)
[ 4] 1.00-1.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 90.0 Mbits/sec 0.030 ms 0/32143 (0%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.047 ms 0/16073 (0%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.050 ms 0/16074 (0%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.024 ms 0/16067 (0%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.034 ms 0/16076 (0%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.029 ms 0/16067 (0%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.032 ms 0/16074 (0%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.041 ms 0/16072 (0%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.044 ms 0/16068 (0%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.042 ms 0/16072 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 215 MBytes 181 Mbits/sec 0.028 ms 0/160746 (0%)
[ 4] Sent 160746 datagrams
CPU Utilization: local/receiver 12.0% (3.7%u/8.3%s), remote/sender 0.2% (0.0%u/0.1%s)

iperf Done.
 
Last edited:

ArtyLoop

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
6,120
The Blouberg backhaul was upgraded, and it seems to have resolved matters for a lot of people. You're next in line for the blackbox probe so I can provide solid evidence.
I will reconnect to the FTTH this evening and do a speed test. I've been doing everything on ADSL, so I was not aware of any improvements, but I doubt its fixed because the TV is using the FTTH and it buffers a lot on Netflix.
 

TheRoDent

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,405
@TheRoDent

How about this then? I recall our conversation in PM last week, so should the disabling of the rate limits have any effect on my 2nd hop in bold?

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| router.lan - 0 | 72 | 72 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 155.93.252.1 - 0 | 72 | 72 | 2 | 6 | 30 | 30 |
| 154.0.1.125 - 0 | 72 | 72 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 154.0.1.13 - 0 | 72 | 72 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| cloudflare.ixp.capetown - 0 | 72 | 72 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| one.one.one.one - 0 | 72 | 72 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider



C:\iperf>iperf3 --verbose --port 17001 -c trcvmh01.cisp.co.za --bandwidth 180M -l 1400 --omit 2 -R -u
iperf 3.1.3
CYGWIN_NT-10.0 JANNIE-PC 2.5.1(0.297/5/3) 2016-04-21 22:14 x86_64
Time: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 10:33:35 GMT
Connecting to host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za is sending
Cookie: JANNIE-PC.1550745215.415373.12dbc296
[ 4] local 192.168.88.252 port 58867 connected to 154.0.15.181 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 21.7 MBytes 182 Mbits/sec 0.024 ms 476/16701 (2.9%) (omitted)
[ 4] 1.00-1.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 90.0 Mbits/sec 0.030 ms 0/32143 (0%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.047 ms 0/16073 (0%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.050 ms 0/16074 (0%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.024 ms 0/16067 (0%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.034 ms 0/16076 (0%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.029 ms 0/16067 (0%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.032 ms 0/16074 (0%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.041 ms 0/16072 (0%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.044 ms 0/16068 (0%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 21.5 MBytes 180 Mbits/sec 0.042 ms 0/16072 (0%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 215 MBytes 181 Mbits/sec 0.028 ms 0/160746 (0%)
[ 4] Sent 160746 datagrams
CPU Utilization: local/receiver 12.0% (3.7%u/8.3%s), remote/sender 0.2% (0.0%u/0.1%s)

iperf Done.
Unfortunately that hop is Vumatel's router. Have no control over that. But like I previously said in a PM, it doesn't matter, what matters is your latency and loss to the endpoint, which looks just great.

*Inbetween* hops don't matter or affect the endpoint latency or loss, as long as they keep switching your packet. They might not prioritize ICMP, hence the higher latency and loss.
 

Tman*

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
2,354
@PBCool - pease check your inbox

You have been ignoring my repeated requests to finalise a support ticket. At this point in time you dont even reply to me anymore.


I have reached a point where I can not recommend Cool Ideas to anyone, service is quite kak to be honest.
 

Armizael

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
346
@PBCool - pease check your inbox

You have been ignoring my repeated requests to finalise a support ticket. At this point in time you dont even reply to me anymore.

I have reached a point where I can not recommend Cool Ideas to anyone, service is quite kak to be honest.
As said earlier in the thread, he's on leave.
Rather pm @TheRoDent
 

wingnut771

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
5,328
@PBCool - pease check your inbox

You have been ignoring my repeated requests to finalise a support ticket. At this point in time you dont even reply to me anymore.

I have reached a point where I can not recommend Cool Ideas to anyone, service is quite kak to be honest.
That's fine, you carry on.
 

ArtyLoop

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
6,120
I connected to the line and did a speed test during business hours today. Its the same its always been, I will do a speed test tonight, I am therefore certain it will also, always be the same it's been.
TV is buffering for a reason..
 

wingnut771

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
5,328
I connected to the line and did a speed test during business hours today. Its the same its always been, I will do a speed test tonight, I am therefore certain it will also, always be the same it's been.
TV is buffering for a reason..
Get the black box, I want to know why.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top