Huge packet-loss lately(pls read).

Ed Hall said:
Hi All

More news.....problem isolated to only one of the upstream providers, not all 3...technical people still on it and they reckon we should have this sorted within the next 72 hours. Sorry again for the delay, but if we have any luck it may be sooner.

I'll keep all updated, hopefully sooner with good news.

Ed
Click to expand...


Thanks for the Update Ed. Now that we all are aware that there is a problem and that it is being resolved, why does IBurst’s Help Desk tell their clients that they are not experiencing any problems?
 
JayD said:
Thanks for the Update Ed. Now that we all are aware that there is a problem and that it is being resolved, why does IBurst’s Help Desk tell their clients that they are not experiencing any problems?
Click to expand...

'cos the HelpDesk doesn't read this forum. :D
 
Yes, but shouldn't the IBurst representative inform the rest of Iburst?

We do Website and Email hosting, and the help desk insists that the problem that the clients are having lies with us.
 
JayD said:
Yes, but shouldn't the IBurst representative inform the rest of Iburst?

We do Website and Email hosting, and the help desk insists that the problem that the clients are having lies with us.
Click to expand...

See, now that is a problem indeed. :mad: Perhaps phoning iBurst and asking for Ed to discuss it personally with him might not be a bad idea.
 
JayD said:
Thanks for the Update Ed. Now that we all are aware that there is a problem and that it is being resolved, why does IBurst’s Help Desk tell their clients that they are not experiencing any problems?
Click to expand...

I would like to know, why after you identified the problem you still have your help desk not telling us the truth?
 
We do not use IBurst. Our clients, who use IBurst are calling us to complain, because IBurst Help desk is unaware of their situation.

We have actually spoken to a superior at IBurst about this. Im still waiting to hear what the response is.
 
Ping tests

pinging both www.iburst.co.za and www.google.com showed 0% packet loss for iburst and 1% for google. Timings better than usual.

Download speeds are ± 200 kbps. I would find this acceptable if I were to be charged R120 per month instead of R599!!

Now that Illovo BS is down, I am picking up from Hyde Park.
db -76 to -79. Load = 2.
 
Ed, I appreciate you fixing the packet loss, however you still have not told use why your support staff continued to tell us there was no problem when there was a massive problem?

Or are we slipping back into old habits very quickly?
 
w1z4rd, not at all, as the team has grown over the last few months, our internal communication structures have not been great. There has been gaps and we are closing them.

On this instance, we found 2 agents did not read the briefing. They're no longer with us.

Bear in mind we test the service the call centre delivers on an hourly basis and correct where there is an issue, sometimes, the corrective action has to be severe.

Hope this helps.
Ed
 
Another thing I'd like to know is how come none of this is logged on the iburst web page under the incident report?
 
Hi Ed,

Thank you for keeping us informed - it keeps me from going to the dark side.

I sent an email to the iBurst helpdesk to complain about the slow speeds and got an email with Dr TCP/IP settings - I nearly punched my TFT. :(
 
PING 216.239.38.10 (216.239.38.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=344 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=345 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=345 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=241 time=345 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=241 time=345 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=241 time=346 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=241 time=345 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=241 time=346 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=241 time=344 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=10 ttl=241 time=344 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=11 ttl=241 time=344 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=12 ttl=241 time=452 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=13 ttl=241 time=345 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=14 ttl=241 time=345 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=15 ttl=241 time=344 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=16 ttl=241 time=345 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=17 ttl=241 time=345 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=18 ttl=241 time=346 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=19 ttl=241 time=346 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=20 ttl=241 time=344 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=21 ttl=241 time=344 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=22 ttl=241 time=344 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=23 ttl=241 time=344 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=24 ttl=241 time=345 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=25 ttl=241 time=344 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=26 ttl=241 time=344 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=27 ttl=241 time=346 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=28 ttl=241 time=345 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=29 ttl=241 time=346 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.38.10: icmp_seq=30 ttl=241 time=346 ms

--- 216.239.38.10 ping statistics ---
30 packets transmitted, 30 received, 0% packet loss, time 29175ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 344.029/348.919/452.725/19.295 ms

This is at work with either the Telkom line or IS in Houghton, JHB. Not sure how to check at the moment. Also I will (if I remember ;) ) check with iburst at home (westdene, melville area).
 
Here is my test from home with iburst over NAT with iburst (all Windows PCs):

Pinging 216.239.38.10 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=403ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=328ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=426ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=411ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=451ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=793ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=760ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=400ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=412ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=440ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=441ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=404ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=611ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=429ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=642ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=1008ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=415ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=602ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=755ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=522ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=752ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=566ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=485ms TTL=236
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=554ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=612ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=393ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=492ms TTL=236
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=427ms TTL=236

Ping statistics for 216.239.38.10:
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 28, Lost = 2 (6% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 328ms, Maximum = 1008ms, Average = 533ms

This is with the new iBurst modem (got it yesterday) too, just in case they blame it on the modem ;)
 
Also via Gardens Centre Tower Cape Town

BW 1.03 Mbps RF Signal -52db @ 09:04 PM

Pinging 216.239.38.10 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=525ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=508ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=532ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=514ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=552ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=525ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=524ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=521ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=579ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=537ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=604ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=526ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=565ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=548ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=526ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=533ms TTL=239
Request timed out.
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=524ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=657ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=527ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=539ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=527ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=543ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=545ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=533ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=556ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=503ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=550ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=542ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=544ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=532ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=524ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=531ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=545ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=571ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=545ms TTL=239

Ping statistics for 216.239.38.10:
Packets: Sent = 36, Received = 35, Lost = 1 (2% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 503ms, Maximum = 657ms, Average = 541ms


Tracing route to ns4.google.com [216.239.38.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 6 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 62 ms 169 ms 44 ms 41.208.232.1
3 111 ms 94 ms 89 ms 192.168.2.1
4 62 ms 41 ms 43 ms 192.168.4.34
5 61 ms 149 ms 44 ms fe2-1-0sub513.gw1.cpt1.alter.net [196.7.3.101]
6 266 ms 279 ms 279 ms so1-0-3.cr1.lnd19.alter.net [196.30.229.173]
7 276 ms 305 ms 284 ms so0-0-0.ir1.lnd19.alter.net [196.30.229.182]
8 277 ms 250 ms 273 ms so-3-0-1.IH2.LND9.ALTER.NET [146.188.3.49]
9 271 ms 279 ms 280 ms so-3-0-0.IH2.LND9.ALTER.NET [146.188.2.50]
10 280 ms 258 ms 259 ms POS2-0.BR1.LND9.ALTER.NET [146.188.7.246]
11 572 ms 483 ms 449 ms 146.188.35.138
12 450 ms 439 ms 439 ms sl-bb23-lon-3-0.sprintlink.net [213.206.129.151]
13 452 ms 433 ms 434 ms sl-gw23-lon-15-0.sprintlink.net [213.206.128.63]
14 491 ms 474 ms 445 ms sle-eurogoogle-1-0.sprintlink.net [82.195.189.186]
15 497 ms 452 ms 444 ms 66.249.95.130
16 740 ms 564 ms 509 ms 72.14.236.216
17 531 ms 524 ms 534 ms 66.249.94.235
18 549 ms 514 ms 548 ms 64.233.175.109
19 550 ms 509 ms 644 ms 72.14.232.102
20 530 ms 509 ms 649 ms 216.239.47.46
21 570 ms 529 ms 514 ms ns4.google.com [216.239.38.10]

Trace complete.

Comparison - No timeouts
BW 323.90kbps RF Signal -52db @ 10:36 AM

Pinging 216.239.38.10 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=544ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=561ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=535ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=548ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=547ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=567ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=531ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=564ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=572ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=626ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=560ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=524ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=592ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=557ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=545ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=566ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=528ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=511ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=544ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=561ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=528ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=566ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=579ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=562ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=524ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=531ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=608ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=532ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=534ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=563ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=560ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=546ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=528ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=527ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=555ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=543ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=534ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=574ms TTL=239
Reply from 216.239.38.10: bytes=32 time=579ms TTL=239

Ping statistics for 216.239.38.10:
Packets: Sent = 39, Received = 39, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 511ms, Maximum = 626ms, Average = 552ms


Tracing route to ns4.google.com [216.239.38.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 3 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 72 ms 49 ms 78 ms 41.208.232.1
3 178 ms 44 ms 144 ms 192.168.2.1
4 84 ms 43 ms 44 ms 192.168.4.34
5 329 ms 118 ms 89 ms fe2-1-0sub513.gw1.cpt1.alter.net [196.7.3.101]
6 427 ms 282 ms 272 ms other-side.s6-0-0.cr5.jnb6.alter.net [196.30.229.150]
7 387 ms 399 ms 283 ms at0-1-1.ir1.lnd19.alter.net [196.30.229.134]
8 422 ms 289 ms 274 ms so-0-0-1.IH2.LND9.ALTER.NET [146.188.2.241]
9 283 ms 291 ms 262 ms so-2-0-2.TR1.LND9.ALTER.NET [146.188.2.45]
10 277 ms 285 ms 299 ms POS1-0.BR1.LND9.ALTER.NET [146.188.7.242]
11 461 ms 448 ms 434 ms 146.188.35.138
12 443 ms 464 ms 454 ms sl-bb23-lon-3-0.sprintlink.net [213.206.129.151]
13 498 ms 455 ms 414 ms sl-gw23-lon-15-0.sprintlink.net [213.206.128.63]
14 467 ms 443 ms 418 ms sle-eurogoogle-1-0.sprintlink.net [82.195.189.186]
15 448 ms 448 ms 464 ms 66.249.95.130
16 529 ms 525 ms 534 ms 72.14.236.216
17 536 ms 523 ms 529 ms 66.249.94.235
18 525 ms 534 ms 529 ms 64.233.175.111
19 589 ms 512 ms 539 ms 72.14.232.102
20 531 ms 524 ms 504 ms 216.239.47.46
21 * 556 ms 558 ms ns4.google.com [216.239.38.10]

Trace complete.

Ed why the drastic drop in BW?
 
Last edited:
Hi all

Some work was done last night and this is going to continue over the next 24-48 hours.

It will be interesting to know if things are getting better oiver this period.

Let us know.

Cheers for now
Ed
 
Hey Ed,

My connection has improved from an avg. ping of 900+ with 15% packet loss to about avg. ping of 500 with 2% packet loss...

Shot
 
Improvement on latancy but BW bottomed out

Hi Ed

It definitely looks much better, but suddenly the BW has dropped out again, yesterday during the day it was in the 700's today ave. about 200-300kbps.

Do you know what the cause is?

Regards

M
EDIT: It seems as if it is with the connection to the site that I'm testing bandwidth with http://www.gam.co.za/connectivity/bandwidth.php local latancy up the pole now?

BW back up to 500kbps

Pinging www.gam.co.za [196.35.164.201] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=245ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=223ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=229ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=249ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=234ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=225ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=229ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=376ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=239ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=258ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=227ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=230ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=226ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=216ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=214ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=253ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=247ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=250ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=213ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=319ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=188ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=257ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=222ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=244ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=217ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=213ms TTL=53
Request timed out.
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=255ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=230ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=223ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=213ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=213ms TTL=53
Reply from 196.35.164.201: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 196.35.164.201:
Packets: Sent = 38, Received = 37, Lost = 1 (2% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 188ms, Maximum = 376ms, Average = 235ms
 
Last edited:
who.is.michael said:
Hi Ed

It definitely looks much better, but suddenly the BW has dropped out again, yesterday during the day it was in the 700's today ave. about 200-300kbps.

Do you know what the cause is?

Regards

M
Click to expand...

Good news about the latency...thanks

We had a quick look at BW, looks like congestion on the base station which is causing the drop in bandwidth. Will check further though.

Regards
Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X