Gamesplayers : Did you notice any ping diff with upgrade? :

padraigf

Got the same heinous pings. Sent a scathing email to esat...

Had enough of their bollox.

mayordenis

same ping problems with digiweb was quite low for the last while but today they went mental.

cerbeus

Is it Esatbt's problem or does the problem lie with the Eircom?

Anarchist

Sorry to hear about all your problems lads
Mine has being fine and like I said b4 perfect for games.
I am Eircom 2mb/128 Summerhill exchange in Dublin 1

tuxy

cerbeus wrote:

Is it Esatbt's problem or does the problem lie with the Eircom?

well i have been gaming using eircom dsl and its perfectly stable here

Gonzo

my spiking pings fixed themselves last night around 9pm and had nice silky smooth pings of 28-34 to jolt last night... hope the spikey pings dont come back, so far my downloads have been very consistant, about 215kb/sec all the time from websites, sometimes higher, only bad area is bit torrent where i can barely get 40k/sec.

Agent Orange

Folks, if you're going to complain about your pings at least mention what provider you're with.

I'm on Esat BB+, been upgraded to 2mb, and my pings have sucked major dingdong since Sunday. The best pings I get to clarity.jolt.co.uk are 46ms but even that is very occassional... usually it's 150ms-300ms. Surely I'm not the only one?

mayordenis

well im not at home right now but on the digiweb 1mg now im gettin pings in a similar region (150-300ms) ****in disaster.

Collina

Pings were sucking for me on the standard Esat IOL BB connection last night - pinging 150 ingame - tracert showed timeouts within the ESAT network (as usual).

moneymad

EIRCOM HOME+ PACKAGE.

---

LOCATION CORK

Connection

---

down 2048 up = 128

---

PPP over ETHERNET

C:\Documents and Settings\Gavin>ping -n 30 jolt.co.uk

Pinging jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 33ms, Maximum = 37ms, Average = 35ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Gavin>




PPP over ATM

C:\Documents and Settings\Gavin>ping -n 30 jolt.co.uk

Pinging jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 82.133.85.65: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 82.133.85.65:
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 28ms, Maximum = 32ms, Average = 29ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Gavin>






TRACEROUTE PPP over ATM
C:\Documents and Settings\Gavin>tracert jolt.co.uk

Tracing route to jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 18 ms 19 ms 19 ms b-ras1.chf.cork.eircom.net [159.134.155.21]
3 19 ms 17 ms 19 ms 83.71.114.65
4 32 ms 32 ms 34 ms pos0-0.corea.thn.london.eircom.net [159.134.191.
234]
5 33 ms 34 ms 32 ms lon1-9.nildram.net [195.66.224.59]
6 35 ms 34 ms 34 ms jolt-gw.nildram.net [195.149.20.126]
7 32 ms 35 ms 34 ms 82.133.85.65

Trace complete.

TRACEROUTE PPP over ETHERNET

C:\Documents and Settings\Gavin>tracert jolt.co.uk

Tracing route to jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms b-ras1.chf.cork.eircom.net [159.134.155.21]
3 17 ms 19 ms 19 ms 83.71.114.81
4 35 ms 34 ms 34 ms pos0-0.corea.the.london.eircom.net [159.134.191.
238]
5 34 ms 37 ms 34 ms lon1-10.nildram.net [195.66.226.59]
6 33 ms 34 ms 34 ms 84.12.225.130
7 36 ms 34 ms 32 ms jolt-gw.nildram.net [195.149.20.126]
8 37 ms 35 ms 37 ms 82.133.85.65

Trace complete.


The results here are great.

Using atm i get lower ping.

On the traceroute you will notice it uses a different route to jolt and a different amount of routers.

Would this be anything to do with changing ethernet to atm when it gets to the exchange?

In the above it uses a certain router for atm and a certain router for ethernet.
Maybe this is why our ping is less!
Dunno.

Why is this?
Thanks.

padraigf

That extra hop is coming from nildram. Shouldnt be anything got to do with whether youre using ATM or Ethernet.

cuppa

iolbb+ palmerstown
my pings were fine since sunday,but to night they suc

Tracing route to boards.ie [82.195.144.58]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1
2 165 ms 150 ms 156 ms bas503.cwt.esat.net [193.95.136.239]
3 146 ms 150 ms 159 ms vlan500.rt501.cwt.esat.net [193.95.136.124]
4 130 ms 121 ms 124 ms vlan51.rt001.cwt.esat.net [193.95.130.137]
5 129 ms 146 ms 145 ms ge1-0.core002.cwt.esat.net [193.95.129.2]
6 153 ms 146 ms 156 ms pos2-0.br001.inex.esat.net [193.95.131.6]
7 141 ms 130 ms 121 ms suez.hosting365.ie [82.195.128.1]
8 168 ms 159 ms 159 ms 82.195.128.4
9 163 ms 166 ms 160 ms boards.ie [82.195.144.58]

C:\WINDOWS>tracert jolt.co.uk

Tracing route to jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 3 ms 5 ms 3 ms 192.168.1.1
2 142 ms 140 ms 131 ms bas503.cwt.esat.net [193.95.136.239]
3 121 ms 118 ms 120 ms vlan500.rt501.cwt.esat.net [193.95.136.124]
4 114 ms 110 ms 105 ms vlan53.rt002.cwt.esat-x.com [193.95.130.153]
5 112 ms 112 ms 111 ms ge1-0.core001.cwt.esat.net [193.95.129.17]
6 143 ms 146 ms 150 ms pos2-0.br001.ldn.esat.net [193.95.131.14]
7 148 ms 141 ms 147 ms lon1-9.nildram.net [195.66.224.59]
8 133 ms 133 ms 139 ms jolt-gw.nildram.net [195.149.20.126]
9 144 ms 140 ms 140 ms jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]

Trace complete.

bonoman66

IOL BB+ based in Celbridge on 2M Down /128 Up

Tested at 11pm this evening while running a simultaneous Azureus session

Tracing route to boards.ie [82.195.144.58]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 14 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.2.1
2 21 ms 18 ms 21 ms bas502.cwt.esat.net [193.95.136.238]
3 24 ms 19 ms 24 ms vlan500.rt502.cwt.esat.net [193.95.136.125]
4 20 ms 72 ms 20 ms vlan54.rt002.cwt.esat-x.com [193.95.130.161]
5 23 ms 30 ms 24 ms ge0-0.core002.cwt.esat.net [193.95.129.18]
6 125 ms 253 ms 266 ms pos2-0.br001.inex.esat.net [193.95.131.6]
7 132 ms 52 ms 22 ms suez.hosting365.ie [82.195.128.1]
8 27 ms 27 ms 66 ms 82.195.128.4
9 66 ms 23 ms 21 ms pie.boards.ie [82.195.144.58]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert jolt.co.uk

Tracing route to jolt.co.uk [82.133.85.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 10 ms 1 ms 2 ms 192.168.2.1
2 22 ms 27 ms 26 ms bas502.cwt.esat.net [193.95.136.238]
3 36 ms 19 ms 56 ms vlan501.rt502.cwt.esat.net [193.95.137.125]
4 28 ms 22 ms 19 ms vlan54.rt002.cwt.esat-x.com [193.95.130.161]
5 59 ms 44 ms 37 ms ge1-0.core001.cwt.esat.net [193.95.129.17]
6 31 ms 33 ms 34 ms pos2-0.br001.ldn.esat.net [193.95.131.14]
7 33 ms 85 ms 52 ms lon1-9.nildram.net [195.66.224.59]
8 34 ms 76 ms 52 ms jolt-gw.nildram.net [195.149.20.126]
9 52 ms 43 ms 36 ms 82.133.85.65

kjt

My ping was fine at 7/8 but sux now too :S

Ppl wacking off their downloads for the nyt

Dcully

Does this seem about right for the eircom BB+ 2048/128 ?


Pinging boards.ie [82.195.144.58] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=58
Reply from 82.195.144.58: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=58

JohnMcMahon

IOLBB+ is all over the gaff, one minute it's chugging along fine (ala the post just above mine here, I'm getting those speeds right now) and then 10 minutes later it'll be in the toilet (with a ping to boards.ie trying up times around 162ms).

moneymad

Looks like eircom uses pppoA aswell

Cause if they didn't i wouldn't be on the net now

Ah well ping still sucks.

Hopefully it will be sorted soon i'm sure.

kjt

Its all fine now , seemed to be just 30mins for me.
W00t got my nightly cs in at least

JNive

Yes, PPPoA appears to be active to DSL conenctions in SOME exchanges, others seem not to be able to use it, or have worse performance

cuppa

turned off modem ...and nothing for about half an hour back now ,seems fine

moneymad

Ya looks like it.

I got a better connection now after using it.
I also am reading as much as possible about it seems interesting stuff indeed.

All we need now is interleaving off for us gamers and we are grand

Baldy

Baldy wrote:

http://www.jeacle.ie/pub/articles/adsl/

Read the Service Definition:

The i-stream service uses a very common ADSL network configuration of PPPoE over RFC1483 bridged ethernet on ATM PVC 8/35. Line speeds are 512/128 and 1M/256. The contention ratio used for dimensioning traffic from DSLAM ports back to the core of the network is 24:1 or 48:1.

The only thing that has changed is the Data rates. since the UPGRADE, they will not bother installing PPPoA as in the future PPPoE will be far more efficient . I hate to be rude but it all in your imagination

Wanna put some sources in there champ.

Have a read of here and here

moneymad

I've read both of those before posting my responce earlier.
So pppoa is indeed a choice.
One thing i was messing with was the VPI and VCI numbers kinda cool stuff.
Anyone know of a diagram or something that explains eircoms network?

Or does anyone have usefull email addy's i can email eircom for info.

Thanks.

petes

moneymad wrote:

Ya looks like it.

I got a better connection now after using it.
I also am reading as much as possible about it seems interesting stuff indeed.

All we need now is interleaving off for us gamers and we are grand

Is this interleaving thing that is fecking my ping up. Our connection at work upgraded to 4meg with 256 up(getting sppeds of 400kb plus from some places) Thought the 2 meg line would have been sufficient but still the ping is the same from boards.ie or jolt...in and around the 130 mark??Dont have broadband in apartment so stay on in work for a bit of gaming. Rather annoying to see someone wit <40 ping.

Confused

Adam_K

Definitive examples from the Eircom Enhanced Package (4mb)
pinging boards.ie
enjoy:

http://homepage.eircom.net/~cncdls/Download/3com%20router.JPG

http://homepage.eircom.net/~cncdls/Download/Ping%20Enhanced%20PPPOA.JPG

http://homepage.eircom.net/~cncdls/Download/Ping%20Enhanced%20PPPOE.JPG

Skittle

Ok, I'm on the Eircom Home Plus package connecting to the Finglas exchange.

I'm getting the full 2Mb down, so no problems there. I've a D-Link 504 and I can connect using PPPoE, PPPoA and "PPPoA with VCMux". Which is supposed to be better between PPPoA and "PPPoA with VCMux"?

Anyone done a comparison?

Skittle

Tazzle

PPPoA with VC Mux has the lowest overhead.

bk

It is quiet clear that Eircom do have PPPoA products they are all listed in the Eircom documentation here:
http://webdev.eircom.net/eircomwholesale/dynamic/pdf/adsl_bitstream_pd_v4.pdf (***PDF***)

eircom Bitstream Sonic VC 2048 256 ATM UBR 24:1
eircom Bitstream Sonic IP 4096 rate adaptive 256 IP UBR 24:1
Eircom Bitstream Express VC 1024 256 ATM UBR 24:1
eircom Bitstream Express 1024 256 ATM UBR 24:1
eircom Bitstream Express IP 3072 rate adaptive 256 IP UBR 24:1
Eircom Bitstream Swift VC 512 128 ATM UBR 24:1
eircom Bitstream Swift 512 128 ATM UBR 24:1
eircom Bitstream Swift IP 2048 rate adaptive 128 rate adaptive IP UBR 24:1
eircom Bitstream Expand IP 1024 rate adaptive 128 rate adaptive IP UBR 48:1

In the past Eircom used PPPoA for the business products. It now looks like they are moving to PPPoE RADSL for the business products also.

What might be happening is that people who are changing their settings are ending up using the old business products.

jonski

I am still using the Zyxel 630-11 USB modem , ( I know , I know , but I always take ages to make up my mind about things and have very little to spend on a proper modem and even then don't know which one to buy ) and up until the upgrade was gaming away no problem , pings fine and stable in the F1 60/70 ish F6 80/90 ish to uk servers playing the old UT ( which has bad netcode in comparison to todays games ) or around the 50 mark for COD . Now since the upgrade my evening time pings are all over the place , one second its 70 the next it's 700 . This is only since the upgrade .

jonski

Anyone else still noticing problems or am I the only one ?

Gose to ****e around the 8-0-clock time and is overall 10 to 20 ms higher .