IBB speeds today...

vinks

Steffano2002 wrote:

Exactly the same for me! Got decent again at around 9 P.M. though... Let's hope it was just down for a bit to upgarde the router(s) that caused the massive problems over the week-end!

was just thinking, does ibb buy bandwidth of another company to link the various masts and sites?

Adey2002

"Some things don't work without lines"

IBB being one of those things.

Steffano2002

vinks wrote:

was just thinking, does ibb buy bandwidth of another company to link the various masts and sites?

The engineer who came to my house last week explained to me that the masts communicated with eachother directly via WIFI (10Gb speed)... Don't know if that answers your question in any way... Or if it's even true...

vinks

Steffano2002 wrote:

The engineer who came to my house last week explained to me that the masts communicated with eachother directly via WIFI (10Gb speed)... Don't know if that answers your question in any way... Or if it's even true...

<not very good sarcasm>
10gbit speeds over wireless, is he insane? how many antennas have they got and what frequences are they working at? actually i find it hard to swallow with 10gbit between masts :P a piece of fibre has speeds of 2.5gbit as a baseline, and thats quite pricey, i cant imagine how much 10gbit would cost <not very good sarcasm>

i guess they arent buying bandwith for connecting the sites then :P if that was the case i dont see ibb spending money on making a working network :P

also been fiddling with fping a bit today whilst in work....

 fping -l 83.141.64.156
83.141.64.156 : [0], 84 bytes, 72.0 ms (72.0 avg, 0% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [1], 84 bytes, 89.7 ms (80.8 avg, 0% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [2], 84 bytes, 77.3 ms (79.7 avg, 0% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [3], 84 bytes, 79.2 ms (79.6 avg, 0% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [4], 84 bytes, 63.4 ms (76.3 avg, 0% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [5], 84 bytes, 88.7 ms (78.4 avg, 0% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [6], 84 bytes, 6246 ms (959 avg, 46% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [12], 84 bytes, 636 ms (919 avg, 38% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [9], 84 bytes, 3643 ms (1221 avg, 30% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [10], 84 bytes, 2642 ms (1363 avg, 23% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [13], 84 bytes, 77.4 ms (1246 avg, 21% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [14], 84 bytes, 82.9 ms (1149 avg, 20% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [16], 84 bytes, 79.2 ms (1067 avg, 23% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [17], 84 bytes, 63.1 ms (995 avg, 22% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [18], 84 bytes, 90.6 ms (935 avg, 21% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [19], 84 bytes, 89.4 ms (882 avg, 20% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [20], 84 bytes, 87.7 ms (835 avg, 19% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [21], 84 bytes, 77.7 ms (793 avg, 18% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [22], 84 bytes, 79.8 ms (756 avg, 17% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [23], 84 bytes, 82.3 ms (722 avg, 16% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [24], 84 bytes, 171 ms (696 avg, 16% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [25], 84 bytes, 67.3 ms (667 avg, 15% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [26], 84 bytes, 84.0 ms (642 avg, 14% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [27], 84 bytes, 87.5 ms (619 avg, 14% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [28], 84 bytes, 87.7 ms (597 avg, 13% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [29], 84 bytes, 77.1 ms (577 avg, 13% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [30], 84 bytes, 138 ms (561 avg, 12% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [31], 84 bytes, 77.2 ms (544 avg, 12% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [32], 84 bytes, 73.7 ms (528 avg, 12% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [33], 84 bytes, 72.1 ms (512 avg, 11% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [34], 84 bytes, 67.8 ms (498 avg, 11% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [35], 84 bytes, 69.0 ms (485 avg, 11% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [36], 84 bytes, 62.1 ms (472 avg, 10% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [37], 84 bytes, 58.8 ms (460 avg, 10% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [38], 84 bytes, 73.9 ms (449 avg, 10% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [39], 84 bytes, 84.9 ms (439 avg, 10% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [40], 84 bytes, 66.1 ms (428 avg, 9% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [41], 84 bytes, 72.7 ms (419 avg, 9% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [42], 84 bytes, 71.5 ms (410 avg, 9% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [43], 84 bytes, 71.0 ms (402 avg, 9% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [44], 84 bytes, 69.2 ms (394 avg, 8% loss)
83.141.64.156 : [45], 84 bytes, 59.5 ms (386 avg, 8% loss)
^C
83.141.64.156 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 46/42/8%, min/avg/max = 58.8/386/6246

with normal ping...

ping 83.141.64.156
PING 83.141.64.156 (83.141.64.156): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=71.045 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=59.664 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=88.158 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=65.887 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=71.673 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=58.805 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=66.282 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=64.939 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=8 ttl=54 time=70.446 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=9 ttl=54 time=65.757 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=10 ttl=54 time=78.011 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=11 ttl=54 time=66.000 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=12 ttl=54 time=75.166 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=13 ttl=54 time=78.139 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=14 ttl=54 time=69.753 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=15 ttl=54 time=159.038 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=16 ttl=54 time=71.048 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=17 ttl=54 time=59.670 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=18 ttl=54 time=78.270 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=19 ttl=54 time=58.660 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=20 ttl=54 time=79.116 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=21 ttl=54 time=69.792 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=22 ttl=54 time=69.079 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=23 ttl=54 time=69.289 ms
64 bytes from 83.141.64.156: icmp_seq=24 ttl=54 time=66.547 ms
^C
--- 83.141.64.156 ping statistics ---
25 packets transmitted, 25 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 58.660/73.209/159.038/18.852 ms

seems packets are still getting lost after the initial handshake for establishing a connection.

LegacyUser

vlinks - that is exactly what I was seeing lastnight - and it was driving me nutty.
If I did a ping -t to a website it would return with decent enough results, showing no packet loss. But I could tell from the performance of the connection that their had to be packet loss.

What is the difference between fping and ping?
I know fping isn't offered on XP.

P.S : Be gentle.

B

vinks

http://www.fping.com/ has more information on what fping is and what it does, i generally just use a thing called "smokeping" to monitor my connection, smokeping in turn uses "fping" to figure out latency's and packetloss.

i just used fping directly to see what sort of latency/packet loss i was getting, i find fping to be a bit more verbose than ping.

btw, its more of a *nix application than windows, i have no idea if it runs under windows.

(i didnt make too much sense in my last email sorry about that, english isnt my first language and i was busy doing other *stuff* in work :P )

LegacyUser

Jesus, if you don't mind me saying - pretty good English! I never would have known!

That is very interesting about fping - I would have googled it - but google doesn't work.


You know the hilarious thing is - lastnight - the only site I could get to easily was comreg.ie - but askcomreg wouldn't load!!

It is still diabolical tonight - cannot even load up google.
I have work to do this evening and will have to use a dial up connection.
This is really ridiculous. 4 days now, and not even an email to apologise. They are great for sending their Christmas crap - but when it comes to proper customer service they have their thumbs up the ass!

Come on IBB - don't you know how to treat your customers? Don't we deserve an explanation.

The emails I sent from work today were deleted without being read. Typical.

gordonnet

mine has been like this since 3rd january, i have treatened to cancel the direct debit. the answer i go was "second line support are looking into the problem", and "we will reimburse you for any loss of service". has anyone on the churchfield mast in cork having the same problems or is it a country wide problem. maybe a combined effort by all involved is necessary.

As far as i am aware comreg dept of communications can revoke irish broadbands license under some conditions.

1013

Had to post this..

IBB Speed Earlier.JPG


It's a first - and this is on RIPwave!

Normally sit down anywhere between 8 and 60 if I'm really lucky!

Are things changing - nah, probably pure chance - was thinking of breeze but after reading so many negative posts, thinking again, plus, support for RIP seems to be about on the same level.

1013

How do I go about uploading the picture? Thought I had, but only see the link

LegacyUser

I don't get this at all. I go to irishisptest.com and a few others and do a test. It says I am getting 800KB download. There is no way I am though - cause I can't even get google half the time!

The attached pic shows what I have been getting constantly since Sunday.
I get random bursts of them I can get a quick surf but its not workable in the least. Strange thing is - when I do a tracert - most times it looks okay - but I still cannot surf. Its as if they are having DNS issues.

I mean, look at this. It is not a bad tracert (apart from it being Oprah) .. at this point in time I could not get onto boards, google, check my email etc.

So, it is going to be difficult to provde to IBB tech support that there is a problem, because they only seem to know about "ping" in there. "Oh, you are pinging okay", "Your radio is plugged in - you must be okay".
My phone line is faster that my 2MB broadband connection.

Tracing route to oprah.com [63.240.143.206]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.254
2 15 ms 18 ms 12 ms 62.231.38.241
3 * 78 ms 10 ms 83.141.117.185
4 8 ms 10 ms 14 ms DN42-as0-0-ibis-access.irishbroadband.ie [62.231
.52.153]
5 * 14 ms 12 ms DN42-ge-0-2-0-50-ibis-gw.irishbroadband.ie [62.2
31.52.157]
6 10 ms 11 ms 12 ms 213.200.67.65
7 114 ms 91 ms 92 ms so-1-0-0.nyc33.ip.tiscali.net [213.200.81.253]
8 103 ms 89 ms 93 ms 12.118.94.45
9 144 ms 109 ms 113 ms 12.122.82.134
10 113 ms 114 ms 109 ms tbr1-cl14.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.10.2]
11 110 ms 110 ms 108 ms gar3-p360.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.123.6.1]
12 113 ms 110 ms 115 ms mdf1-gsr12-2-pos-7-0.chi1.attens.net [12.122.255
.194]
13 117 ms 115 ms 113 ms mdf1-bi8k-2-eth-1-3.chi1.attens.net [63.240.128.
174]
14 114 ms 114 ms 117 ms 63.240.143.206

Trace complete.

wheresmejumper

ping doesn't set up any connection (no handshaking) since it's ICMP not TCP, the difference between fping and windows ping is that windows ping waits a second for a reply and even if the reply arrives withing 50ms will wait the full second to send the next ping - on the other hand fping shows loss and delayed packets (see how it gets a response to ping "9" while waiting for ping "12") because it's probably pinging every 100ms or so.

A standard windows ping tells you whether you can reach the destination it doesn't tell you much about the quality of the connection. You could have a poor connection like IBBs and windows ping will say you've 100% connectivity. But all it really tells you is you can send a 64byte packet a second over a connection that's supposed to give you 256,000bytes a second.

Support staff at IBB don't know how limited a tool ping is, and will tell your connection is fine because they've spent a couple minutes pinging it.

There are other versions of ping for windows, probably a version of fping, but I find hrping good (http://www.cfos.de/ping/ping.htm). If you ping a site that takes about 70ms to reply in theory you should be able to send a ping every 100ms with hrping try a command like "hrping -s 100 -n 30" this sends a 30 packets with a 100ms interval between each one.

With IBB this might show 20% packet loss. It's still only 10 packets/sec which they should be able to cope with. This is useless for VoIP and gaming and only barely acceptable for browsing.

vinks

wheresmejumper wrote:

ping doesn't set up any connection (no handshaking) since it's ICMP not TCP, the difference between fping and windows ping is that windows ping waits a second for a reply and even if the reply arrives withing 50ms will wait the full second to send the next ping - on the other hand fping shows loss and delayed packets (see how it gets a response to ping "9" while waiting for ping "12") because it's probably pinging every 100ms or so.

A standard windows ping tells you whether you can reach the destination it doesn't tell you much about the quality of the connection. You could have a poor connection like IBBs and windows ping will say you've 100% connectivity. But all it really tells you is you can send a 64byte packet a second over a connection that's supposed to give you 256,000bytes a second.

Support staff at IBB don't know how limited a tool ping is, and will tell your connection is fine because they've spent a couple minutes pinging it.

There are other versions of ping for windows, probably a version of fping, but I find hrping good (http://www.cfos.de/ping/ping.htm). If you ping a site that takes about 70ms to reply in theory you should be able to send a ping every 100ms with hrping try a command like "hrping -s 100 -n 30" this sends a 30 packets with a 100ms interval between each one.

With IBB this might show 20% packet loss. It's still only 10 packets/sec which they should be able to cope with. This is useless for VoIP and gaming and only barely acceptable for browsing.

thats a much better explanation than i can ever give!

LegacyUser

Got onto IBB this morning. They were asking me to do pings etc - but sure it is random. Here is ping to google!!

C:\>ping www.google.com
Ping request could not find host www.google.com. Please check the name and
try a
gain.

C:\>

Then they are asking me to download files from heanet.ie and take a print screen of the download speed. But sure on XP you don't get download speets when downloading a file (only remaining minutes to completion).

I have emailed the support guy back with the above.
Does anyone know the email address of the CEO of National Tol roads?

Steffano2002

bubby wrote:

Then they are asking me to download files from heanet.ie and take a print screen of the download speed. But sure on XP you don't get download speets when downloading a file (only remaining minutes to completion).

Yeah you do!? Bot in IE and FF... oO

LegacyUser

Steffano2002 wrote:

Yeah you do!? Bot in IE and FF... oO

Hi Seffano - here were the instructions they gave.
I followed them when the file downloads I only see a progress metre and it denotes the amount of time left for the download, but not how many kbs.
So a print screen wouldn't show anything really.

1) Please go to the following site
ftp://ftp.heanet.ie/mirrors/ftp.debian.org/debian/ and try to download
the file named ls-lR which is 27Mb in size. Right Click this file and save
to the desktop on the PC. If you are using Internet Explorer please
double click on the named file and choose "save as" and this will show a
window with download speeds. Delete this file when finished.
Please record the download speed on a screen shot and attach it to this
mail. This is important as it will update this open ticket.

wheresmejumper

You can just run FTP from the command line, open an msdos shell (start menu:run... then type cmd and click ok), this will give a better figure than firefor/IE anyway (the browsers start downloading before you click ok - so sometimes you see figures higher than you expect).

type
ftp ftp.heanet.ie
for user name type anonymous
for password type anything you want
type
cd /mirrors/ftp.debian.org/debian
type
hash
(This prints hashes as the download continues. It's a long download so this is useful)
type
bin
type
get ls-lR
to quit type quit

copy and paste the entire session the last couple lines which will contain the Kbytes/sec

Wonder how heanet feel about being used as a test site by IBB, why don't they just use ftp.irishbroadband.ie?

Steffano2002

Works for me in both IE and FF in Windowa 2000 and XP...



Do you have the "Save As..." option when you righ-click on the file?

1013

Yup, just knew it was too good to be true. Back to the sort of dial up speeds that I've had for weeks now.

I think I was probably on a different site/mast which gave me the better speeds. Anybody know if I can choose the mast I use? I'm using RIPwave which seems to have a mind of its own when it comes to getting a signal.

IBB 10.00pm 18 Jan 06.gif

FunkyDa

Guys, you are not alone! Have a look at the Whirlpool.net.au forums. Specifically, the Unwired forum. They(Unwired) use the same Navini Ripwave equipment, with the same operational problems.

Random

2Mbit breeze. No complaints in the past week.

Irishpimpdude

Woh wtf im getting 5mbit upload :eek:

LegacyUser

Was anyone given specific irishbroadband dns servers to use on installlation of Breeze?

Blaster99

Yes, 62.231.32.10 and 62.231.32.11.

Boro

Are all these problems from people on the northside? I just moved appartment and there used to be an IBB connection there, so i am getting in hooked up again. Im down by Rathmines/Dartry. Am i wasting my time and letting myself in for grief?

My last place i had the 3mb NTL connection which was fantastic.

Dimy

Boro wrote:

Are all these problems from people on the northside? I just moved appartment and there used to be an IBB connection there, so i am getting in hooked up again. Im down by Rathmines/Dartry. Am i wasting my time and letting myself in for grief?

My last place i had the 3mb NTL connection which was fantastic.

No... it's also very slow here on the southside... :mad:

Steffano2002

Boro wrote:

Are all these problems from people on the northside? I just moved appartment and there used to be an IBB connection there, so i am getting in hooked up again. Im down by Rathmines/Dartry. Am i wasting my time and letting myself in for grief?

My last place i had the 3mb NTL connection which was fantastic.

Oh my God... NTL to IBB... Now THAT'S a downgrade if I ever saw one! Good luck Boro!

Boro

Im starting to get a bad vibe about the whole IBB thing. I need broadband though, going cold turkey without it... Going seriously off-topic here, sorry. Worth seeing if i can get smart? Or hold on, cross my fingers and hope that ntl roll out in my area?

LegacyUser

Boro wrote:

Im starting to get a bad vibe about the whole IBB thing. I need broadband though, going cold turkey without it... Going seriously off-topic here, sorry. Worth seeing if i can get smart? Or hold on, cross my fingers and hope that ntl roll out in my area?

Dunno Boro, its up to you.. your fingers might crack off waiting for NTL (they don't have any idea when they will roll out in specific areas when you ring them). IBB is a VEDRY frustrating experience, but if you MUST have broadband and cannot get ADSL you could always try magnet or metro.

Try broadband.gov.ie for a list of providers.

LegacyUser

Steffano2002 wrote:

Do you have the "Save As..." option when you righ-click on the file?

Nope .. dinnae have that option