Sentech needs new routers

[dorris]

mmmmmmmmm, this smells like an overloaded router flushing its buffers and starting over cleanly,
notice the trend in the ping rtt leading up to the timeout, and then the immediate 'fresh' result following the timeout. Its all rather disturbing!

Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1991ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=2498ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1180ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1720ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=778ms TTL=236
<font color="red">Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1177ms TTL=236 </font id="red">
<font color="red">Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1399ms TTL=236 </font id="red">
<font color="red">Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1800ms TTL=236 </font id="red">
<font color="red">Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1998ms TTL=236 </font id="red">
<font color="red">Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=2198ms TTL=236 </font id="red">
Request timed out.
<font color="green">Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=996ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=418ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=376ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=356ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=497ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=993ms TTL=236 </font id="green">
<font color="red"> Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1395ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1699ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1485ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1713ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1685ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=2533ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=2776ms TTL=236 </font id="red">
Request timed out.
<font color="green"> Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=798ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1000ms TTL=236 </font id="green">
<font color="red">Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1718ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1880ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=2319ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=2480ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=3038ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=3139ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=3457ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=2183ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1774ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=3003ms TTL=236 </font id="red">
Request timed out.
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=1599ms TTL=236
Reply from 64.233.171.104: bytes=32 time=519ms TTL=236

The trend continues, over 1000ms (1 second) up till around 3000ms, where timeouts occur, after timeout, rtt starts at under 1000, and slowly climbs, to next timeout.

In my limited experience/knowledge of networks, this spells some seriously underpowered routers!!
Another illustration that not all problems can be solved by more bandwidth!!

 

[dbnnet]

Dorris, I wasn't joking! []

<font size="1">Posted by dbnnet - 08/21/2004 : 11:48:52
---------------------------------------------------
You've now put a picture in my head......
This 200 million rand IPW network
all linked through to a single Cisco 1601
router in JHB</font id="size1">

<font size="1"><font color="black">Bay of Plenty :</font id="black"><font color="blue"> Signal 48% - SNL 17 - ber 71% :</font id="blue"><font color="green"> D-Link DI-604 - PPPoE :</font id="green"><font color="orange"> 8dBi Patch Antenna :</font id="orange"> Firmware 5.0.1.60</font id="size1">

 

[loosecannon]

what you mean 1601 ... im sure the useing a old livingston router

i have a trusty ORLS here good for 384kbs and supports OSPF ..

 

[dbnnet]

Loosecannon... Now you are showing your age!
(I remember when they were all the rage with many ISP's... back in the last century!!)

<font size="1"><font color="black">Bay of Plenty :</font id="black"><font color="blue"> Signal 48% - SNL 17 - ber 71% :</font id="blue"><font color="green"> D-Link DI-604 - PPPoE :</font id="green"><font color="orange"> 8dBi Patch Antenna :</font id="orange"> Firmware 5.0.1.60</font id="size1">

 

[dorris]

Things seem to have improved, but I doubt theres any reason, just my lucky day!

100 packets transmitted, 95 received, 5% packet loss, time 105148ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 345.686/416.052/956.002/89.307 ms
[root@Dorris root]#

Today, nothing goes over 1000ms YaY, even the timeouts don show any disturbing behaviour like yesterdays
64 bytes from 216.239.41.99: icmp_seq=60 ttl=236 time=421 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.41.99: icmp_seq=61 ttl=236 time=380 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.41.99: icmp_seq=63 ttl=236 time=379 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.41.99: icmp_seq=65 ttl=236 time=420 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.41.99: icmp_seq=66 ttl=236 time=358 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.41.99: icmp_seq=67 ttl=236 time=358 ms


By the way,like, you dudes are like ... old man, if we go as far back as last century, I never worried about routers, BGP, OSPF, my only worries were, will the stork bring me a fresh diaper tomorrow! ( I took preference to the model SH#T3x

 

[loosecannon]

i prefer to say in the last 10 years ....

i have 2 of em one is FUBAR the other i was using until recently on my 64kb diginet link ...
they are fantastic devices ... prehaps you will remmember the PM2/PM3/PM4 series of routers