latency

B

bradleyzorg

Active Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Location
.
have a look.
PING www.google.akadns.net (216.239.53.99) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=233 time=1206 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=233 time=1012 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=3 ttl=233 time=1051 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=5 ttl=233 time=1033 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=6 ttl=233 time=1039 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=7 ttl=233 time=1011 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=8 ttl=233 time=1013 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=9 ttl=233 time=1003 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=10 ttl=233 time=1032 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=11 ttl=233 time=1011 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=12 ttl=233 time=999 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=13 ttl=233 time=1034 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=14 ttl=233 time=1018 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=15 ttl=233 time=1010 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.53.99: icmp_seq=16 ttl=233 time=1050 ms

--- www.google.akadns.net ping statistics ---
17 packets transmitted, 15 received, 11% packet loss, time 17506ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 999.144/1035.257/1206.076/48.306 ms, pipe 2
im freeking out. sure its sat - but there must be a way to reduce this latency.
here is a ping to the dns server.
PING 196.38.110.1 (196.38.110.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=252 time=1045 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=252 time=668 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=252 time=845 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=252 time=660 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=252 time=692 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=252 time=685 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=252 time=676 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=252 time=668 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=252 time=660 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=252 time=645 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=252 time=689 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=252 time=698 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=252 time=691 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=252 time=682 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=15 ttl=252 time=673 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=16 ttl=252 time=664 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=17 ttl=252 time=698 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=18 ttl=252 time=661 ms
64 bytes from 196.38.110.1: icmp_seq=19 ttl=252 time=691 ms

--- 196.38.110.1 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 19 received, 5% packet loss, time 19160ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 645.572/705.400/1045.755/89.756 ms, pipe 2
 
thats what i want to know... it is a 512:256 connection. i have mannaged to get up2 1.5Mbit downloads, but browsing can be slow with that latency.
i ran a constant ping to google last night all of the night and got a average of 900ms...

any one know how i can tweak this?
 
You can build a realy tall pole (about 20000Km should do the trick) and mount the satelite dish on top of that.

Alternativly you could move the satelite into a lower earth orbit.

Satelite == Bad latency. I think you'll just have to live with it unless you run a half loop and upload via an ADSL line or something.

<hr noshade size="1">
Very funny Scotty. Now beam down my pants!!
 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Karnaugh</i>
<br />You can build a realy tall pole (about 20000Km should do the trick) and mount the satelite dish on top of that.

Alternativly you could move the satelite into a lower earth orbit.

Satelite == Bad latency. I think you'll just have to live with it unless you run a half loop and upload via an ADSL line or something.

<hr noshade size="1">
Very funny Scotty. Now beam down my pants!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

[:D] You'd also have to buy 20000Kms worth of cable and that's where the costs start mounting up. My one friend actually tried this setup but his pole was constantly being clipped by aircraft.
 
yeh im gonna try the split thing. send DNS requests down a leased line and see if things better. ill post my conclution sumtime.
 
this is rediculous!!!!!
i called them (sentech) this morning they said a week ago wen i last called that i would not be able to traceroute... well I CAN SENTECH!
have a look at this.
2 192.168.150.28 (192.168.150.28) 864.637 ms 649.326 ms 726.649 ms
3 192.168.150.51 (192.168.150.51) 2276.583 ms 639.880 ms 640.110 ms
4 gige-0-0-7.rtr-core4-stp.infosat.net (66.18.67.222) 630.444 ms
621.871 ms 638.755 ms
5 gige-0-0-21.rtr-bdr1-rbn.infosat.net (66.18.65.209) 631.084 ms
616.011 ms 649.492 ms
6 168.209.18.61 (168.209.18.61) 635.338 ms 636.493 ms 633.711 ms
7 196.26.0.7 (196.26.0.7) 635.260 ms 640.151 ms 634.880 ms
8 168.209.100.74 (168.209.100.74) 664.879 ms 668.877 ms 673.471 ms
9 168.209.2.3 (168.209.2.3) 640.322 ms 646.087 ms 637.495 ms
10 168.209.0.6 (168.209.0.6) 867.502 ms 895.003 ms 904.860 ms
11 core1b-ny.nmszone.is.co.za (168.209.244.3) 915.873 ms 986.197 ms
914.366 ms
12 POS1-2.IG2.NYC4.ALTER.NET (208.192.177.205) 924.022 ms 896.672 ms
913.958 ms
13 589.at-5-0-0.XR4.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.18.70) 917.877 ms * 915.204 ms
14 0.so-2-0-0.XL2.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.18.29) 1010.450 ms 884.819
ms 899.424 ms
15 0.so-7-0-0.BR1.NYC4.ALTER.NET (152.63.21.81) 909.477 ms 880.399
ms 875.980 ms
16 so-0-0-0.edge1.NewYork1.Level3.net (209.244.160.181) 918.971 ms
894.866 ms 909.786 ms
17 ge-2-1-0.bbr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (64.159.4.149) 905.947 ms
ge-2-1-0.bbr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (64.159.4.145) 914.299 ms 909.531 ms
18 as-3-0.bbr1.Washington1.Level3.net (64.159.3.254) 914.301 ms
923.723 ms 899.885 ms
19 ge-7-2.ipcolo2.Washington1.Level3.net (64.159.18.132) 904.850 ms
903.278 ms 911.067 ms
20 unknown.Level3.net (64.156.240.26) 895.143 ms 922.172 ms 900.042 ms
21 216.239.47.102 (216.239.47.102) 918.032 ms 919.084 ms 885.724 ms
notice hop 2 and 3 THEY ARE INTERNAL IP'S! what kind of "ISP" has ever done sumthing like this? my conversation with sentech to day was "no i dont have a problem, but the way things are being done is bloody rediculous" so im waiting for a call from one of the head engeneers to call me back.
 
Does anyone know if the quality of Voip applications using a satelite connection will be degraded significantly by the latency associated with a satelite connection?

Any comments appreciated, thanks
 
Logic tells me no, you would only experience a small delay, but I don't know enough about Voip technology to be certain of this.
 
Looks like they seriously need to improve their peering on the other side of that connection.

Is the IP that you are provided with RFC 1918 as well?

I have seen that done before, and you're quite right thats a serious no no as far as I know! People trying to save IP's on their AS *tisk*



- Colin Alston
colin at alston dot za dot org

"Warning: Use with extreme caution."
 
Hi everyone...

We were one of the first VSat (VSTAR) customers of Sentech, let me give you an example of what their latency used to be (haven't tested it lately, the VSat dish just sits there, replaced it with a fibre line to Internet Solutions)

PING 196.25.1.1 (196.25.1.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=245 time=10323.068 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=245 time=8308.443 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=245 time=7298.511 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=245 time=6288.599 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=245 time=5903.441 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=245 time=12995.524 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=245 time=11985.790 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=245 time=11167.846 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=245 time=10286.104 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=245 time=9276.192 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=245 time=8714.817 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=245 time=8923.868 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=245 time=7039.138 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=16 ttl=245 time=5519.466 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=17 ttl=245 time=4509.742 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=19 ttl=245 time=3041.584 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=20 ttl=245 time=2197.266 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=21 ttl=245 time=1315.845 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=22 ttl=245 time=19924.212 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=23 ttl=245 time=20388.552 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=25 ttl=245 time=18689.069 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=26 ttl=245 time=17743.131 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=27 ttl=245 time=16733.217 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=28 ttl=245 time=15723.295 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=29 ttl=245 time=14713.578 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=31 ttl=245 time=12757.948 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=32 ttl=245 time=11747.928 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=34 ttl=245 time=9728.114 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=35 ttl=245 time=8718.186 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=36 ttl=245 time=7708.164 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=38 ttl=245 time=5688.331 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=39 ttl=245 time=4678.403 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=40 ttl=245 time=3987.607 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=41 ttl=245 time=2977.660 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=42 ttl=245 time=1967.750 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=43 ttl=245 time=1251.571 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=44 ttl=245 time=16809.200 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=45 ttl=245 time=17431.700 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=46 ttl=245 time=16421.873 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=47 ttl=245 time=15411.972 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=48 ttl=245 time=14402.045 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=49 ttl=245 time=14056.735 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=50 ttl=245 time=13495.197 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=52 ttl=245 time=11475.296 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=53 ttl=245 time=10465.367 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=54 ttl=245 time=9455.445 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=55 ttl=245 time=8445.525 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=56 ttl=245 time=7506.102 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=57 ttl=245 time=6496.656 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=58 ttl=245 time=5550.232 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=61 ttl=245 time=2520.382 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=62 ttl=245 time=1702.222 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=63 ttl=245 time=1525.840 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=64 ttl=245 time=1221.108 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=65 ttl=245 time=2334.863 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=66 ttl=245 time=2094.399 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=67 ttl=245 time=1404.636 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=68 ttl=245 time=843.425 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=69 ttl=245 time=923.310 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=70 ttl=245 time=875.114 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=71 ttl=245 time=826.652 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=72 ttl=245 time=2021.574 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=73 ttl=245 time=6135.541 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=74 ttl=245 time=5125.617 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=75 ttl=245 time=4115.793 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=82 ttl=245 time=1875.809 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=85 ttl=245 time=845.656 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=86 ttl=245 time=3093.108 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=87 ttl=245 time=5180.596 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=89 ttl=245 time=3224.640 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=90 ttl=245 time=2214.713 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=91 ttl=245 time=1204.785 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=92 ttl=245 time=675.199 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=93 ttl=245 time=1152.044 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=94 ttl=245 time=1168.234 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=95 ttl=245 time=5114.533 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=96 ttl=245 time=6325.227 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=97 ttl=245 time=5315.573 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=98 ttl=245 time=4305.652 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=99 ttl=245 time=3295.665 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=100 ttl=245 time=2412.589 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=101 ttl=245 time=1402.685 ms
64 bytes from 196.25.1.1: icmp_seq=102 ttl=245 time=1406.456 ms

--- 196.25.1.1 ping statistics ---
109 packets transmitted, 83 packets received, 23% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 675.199/7006.373/20388.552/5471.164 ms

The throughput going through the connection at the time of the pings was approximately 28Kbits/s upstream, 58Kbits/s downstream.

Just thought that you guys would find this interesting... at stages, we used to get pings of up to 22000ms! Fortunately we've got backup pigeons with floppy disks who were able to fly faster than the satellite when we were having these problems [:D]
 
BTW, I think the 192 IP range is actually an IP that is used and registered, check out this post

http://www.myadsl.co.za/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2247

and telnet into IS's server thingy and do a list of the thingies (BGM?)

Gets all the local subnets and stuffs [:p] aight
 
Building a high pole and mounting your dish on top of that isn't really going to help... Electricity and RF travels at the same speed. :)

<font color="blue"><b>The clock is ticking................... <i>1,174 kb/s</i> - I brake for no one</b></font id="blue">
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/cogeco.jpg
 
P.R.S. lists IS's BGP routing table amoungst other things.

" BTW, I think the 192 IP range is actually an IP that is used and registered"

192.168.0.0/16 is defenitly not a public IP range,

- Colin Alston
colin at alston dot za dot org

"Warning: Use with extreme caution."
 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Electricity and RF travels at the same speed. :)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Funnily enough they dont ;)

- Colin Alston
colin at alston dot za dot org

"Warning: Use with extreme caution."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X