Status
Not open for further replies.

izakhearn

Active Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
37
Pinging 1.1.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=58

Ping statistics for 1.1.1.1:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 3ms, Average = 1ms
I get about the same as you. Why is it going all the why to Australia in the one that gets posted?

Pinging 1.1.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59
Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 1.1.1.1:
Packets: Sent = 24, Received = 24, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 2ms, Average = 1ms
 

TheRoDent

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,397
Hi Speed,

Yes I'm on the MTN fibre in Lonehill, using Cool Ideas as ISP ... nothing on their website about network issues though
MTN has confirmed an issue affecting all ISP's and subscribers.

As usual, I'm sure we'll have no feedback as to what the actual issue was. Sorry, that's all I have.
 
Last edited:

TheRoDent

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,397
Logged a support ticket at around 1, no feedback. Call centre closed?
Openserve cannot explain what the issue is yet. Authentication works fine, and has been confirmed with packet dumps since Friday.

But since openserve terminates/cripples the PPPoE on our "behalf" we cannot do anything else.
 

TheRoDent

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,397
@PBCool

Ticket Created #COOL-20190311-235211 Buffering International
Octotel 100/25

As per your request last night ticket created and iperf tests send.

Thank you

PS..I forgot to mention tonight is not as bad as last night.
Hi Joeline. I was hoping we had laid this to rest, but I've still received nothing but radio silence from Octotel since my last telecon and emails other than "they are making changes".

Apparently for the worse... I understand how frustrating this is for you. Imagine what it's like on our end....

Other folks such as MDE still have issues, and we just have crickets chirping. Log issue. "Signals are fine". Crickets.

Complain about backhaul and congestion. "We've made changes". Er. Ok.... Crickets.

FSCK it feels like I'm dealing with Sentech all over again....
 

joeline

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
328
Hi Joeline. I was hoping we had laid this to rest, but I've still received nothing but radio silence from Octotel since my last telecon and emails other than "they are making changes".

Apparently for the worse... I understand how frustrating this is for you. Imagine what it's like on our end....

Other folks such as MDE still have issues, and we just have crickets chirping. Log issue. "Signals are fine". Crickets.

Complain about backhaul and congestion. "We've made changes". Er. Ok.... Crickets.

FSCK it feels like I'm dealing with Sentech all over again....
It was perfect for more than a month until last week when that node maintenance was done. I do appreciate all that
you and @PBCool are doing for your customers. It cannot be easy tryIng to sort out all the problems with the FNO'S.
 
Last edited:

MDE

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,668
Hi Joeline. I was hoping we had laid this to rest, but I've still received nothing but radio silence from Octotel since my last telecon and emails other than "they are making changes".

Apparently for the worse... I understand how frustrating this is for you. Imagine what it's like on our end....

Other folks such as MDE still have issues, and we just have crickets chirping. Log issue. "Signals are fine". Crickets.

Complain about backhaul and congestion. "We've made changes". Er. Ok.... Crickets.

FSCK it feels like I'm dealing with Sentech all over again....
Thanks
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2019
Messages
6
Why is it going all the why to Australia in the one that gets posted?
It isn't going there, the ping is far too low to reach Australia. Although 1.1.1.1 is known as Cloudflare's DNS, it was assigned to them by APNIC - located in Australia. - which will explain why the location is seen as Australia.[/QUOTE]
 

MDE

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,668
And another night of buffering...

Linux HPM.Home 4.15.0-46-generic #49-Ubuntu SMP Wed Feb 6 09:33:07 UTC 2019 x86_64
Time: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:50:01 GMT
Connecting to host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host trcvmh01.cisp.co.za is sending
Cookie: HPM.Home.1552326601.244800.22a5f2263
[ 4] local 192.168.1.8 port 56402 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 129 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec 0.200 ms 0/94 (0%) (omitted)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 112 KBytes 918 Kbits/sec 1.196 ms 7/89 (7.9%) (omitted)
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 109 KBytes 896 Kbits/sec 3.266 ms 8/88 (9.1%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 107 KBytes 874 Kbits/sec 1.133 ms 12/90 (13%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 112 KBytes 918 Kbits/sec 0.845 ms 8/90 (8.9%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 109 KBytes 896 Kbits/sec 2.037 ms 6/86 (7%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 116 KBytes 952 Kbits/sec 0.997 ms 7/92 (7.6%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 123 KBytes 1.01 Mbits/sec 0.218 ms 0/90 (0%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 113 KBytes 930 Kbits/sec 1.502 ms 6/89 (6.7%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 120 KBytes 986 Kbits/sec 0.179 ms 1/89 (1.1%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 113 KBytes 930 Kbits/sec 1.850 ms 5/88 (5.7%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 KBytes 918 Kbits/sec 2.734 ms 8/90 (8.9%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Test Complete. Summary Results:
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.20 MBytes 1.00 Mbits/sec 2.661 ms 61/893 (6.8%)
[ 4] Sent 893 datagrams
CPU Utilization: local/receiver 0.6% (0.2%u/0.4%s), remote/sender 0.0% (0.0%u/0.0%s)
 

image132

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
1,051
Hi Joeline. I was hoping we had laid this to rest, but I've still received nothing but radio silence from Octotel since my last telecon and emails other than "they are making changes".

Apparently for the worse... I understand how frustrating this is for you. Imagine what it's like on our end....

Other folks such as MDE still have issues, and we just have crickets chirping. Log issue. "Signals are fine". Crickets.

Complain about backhaul and congestion. "We've made changes". Er. Ok.... Crickets.

FSCK it feels like I'm dealing with Sentech all over again....
So they're the garbage company @ArtyLoop said they were. I don't agree with the way he went about it but his conclusion seems right.

Its one thing for Octotel to not give customers the service level they should get its quite another for them to stone wall ISPs. If I were you guys I'd start taking more serious action against them. Not talking to YOU is not acceptable.

Personally twitch hasn't been much better. The reduction in packet loss has helped, its shifted the timeframe from when twitch is unusable from about 6pm - 11pm to 8pm-10pm but its still not usable during peak. I haven't been complaining much because well lets face it, there isn't anything CISP can do at this point and you guys seem to have your hands full putting out fires elsewhere. Your proxy is no longer the silver bullet it once was. For whatever reason I get more packet loss to it than I do to international sites.

But Octotel apparently did their maintenance on my area this morning so I'll report back tonight/tomorrow if anything has changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top