IBB Network in the worst state yet

spooky donkey · 25-10-2005 4:30pm

They were doing some work in Blanch on Monday. It dident get any better. From what I hear it will be 2 more weeks before they do anything else. The normal turn around time to fix problems seems to be about 2 months. If we have to wait 2 more weeks they will have been real fast getting this problem sorted in about 6 weeks.

pete · 25-10-2005 6:27pm

joolsveer wrote:

I'm in D15 and the IBB service continues to be terrible. See attached graph.
Has anyone got any news about when the service is going to be adequate?

got this today

Due to our rapid growth in the last three months, our customer base has doubled. We are in the process of upgrading this site. The planning and licensing has been completed and we have now scheduled this upgrade for the start of november. In the mean time we are doing our utmost to optimise the performance on our network. It is however likely that you will experience some degradation in your service level until this upgrade work is complete. We really appreciate your patience on this matter and would like to assure you that we are doing everything in our power to restore your service to optimal performance levels. We will keep you updated on a weekly basis with regard to the work schedule and will notify you of any changes to our schedule.

i'm on ballycoolin btw.

spooky donkey · 25-10-2005 8:55pm

Why dont they get all the planing and linceing done before they get new customers. This is a slow process id imagine, never mind installing new routers and the like. I`ve heard them blame com reg licence process on delays to upgrades but the end user should never be aware there is upgrades. The ESB upgrade all the time but I never hear about it. Are Com Reg an obstical all BB companies have to juggle and IBB are just not very good at it?

I heard an ad on the raido today for NIB ( the back) and at the end it said `NIB is subjest to the finanical regulator` or something like that, so ya know they cant rip you off. How come we never hear `IBB is subject to the comunications regulator`?

GavinJCD · 25-10-2005 9:26pm

He's getting a fair few ARP packets alright. And you can't do anything about them them because they aren't tcp/ip packets and therefore can't be blocked. That's the one thing I don't like about IBB, the fact that everyone on the same mast becomes a LAN. So you get everyone elses broadcast traffic. Shouldn't really cause a slowdown though.

Not unbless you were getting more than 50/second.

Gav

vinks · 16-01-2006 1:03am

just to bump this thread without starting a new one....

im on 83.141.64.156 / 255.255.255.192 with the 84.141.64.129 gateway.

just working out the netmasks etc...

ipcalc 83.141.64.0/255.255.255.192
Address:   83.141.64.0          01010011.10001101.01000000.00 000000
Netmask:   255.255.255.192 = 26 11111111.11111111.11111111.11 000000
Wildcard:  0.0.0.63             00000000.00000000.00000000.00 111111
=>
Network:   83.141.64.0/26       01010011.10001101.01000000.00 000000
HostMin:   83.141.64.1          01010011.10001101.01000000.00 000001
HostMax:   83.141.64.62         01010011.10001101.01000000.00 111110
Broadcast: 83.141.64.63         01010011.10001101.01000000.00 111111
Hosts/Net: 62                    Class A

followed quite promptly by pinging all the address in my /26 range to see what was up, i see 3 hosts.

fping -g 83.141.64.156/26
83.141.64.156 is alive
83.141.64.159 is alive
83.141.64.165 is alive

 fping -g 83.141.64.0/26
83.141.64.1 is alive
83.141.64.11 is alive
83.141.64.12 is alive
83.141.64.24 is alive
83.141.64.28 is alive
83.141.64.37 is alive

so i did a scan of /24 which seemed the more logical thing to do... (now i see 30hosts)

 fping -g 83.141.64.0/24
83.141.64.1 is alive
83.141.64.11 is alive
83.141.64.12 is alive
83.141.64.24 is alive
83.141.64.28 is alive
83.141.64.37 is alive
83.141.64.65 is alive
83.141.64.67 is alive
83.141.64.68 is alive
83.141.64.75 is alive
83.141.64.79 is alive
83.141.64.92 is alive
83.141.64.107 is alive
83.141.64.108 is alive
83.141.64.112 is alive
83.141.64.129 is alive
83.141.64.132 is alive
83.141.64.134 is alive
83.141.64.136 is alive
83.141.64.138 is alive
83.141.64.137 is alive
83.141.64.145 is alive
83.141.64.147 is alive
83.141.64.148 is alive
83.141.64.156 is alive
83.141.64.159 is alive
83.141.64.165 is alive
83.141.64.82 is alive
83.141.64.85 is alive
83.141.64.84 is alive

so what i am curious is how much bandwidth a "sector" has, and how ibb define how many hosts go onto a sector, since i only know that 83.141.64.0 is on my mast, there may be others... i guess comparing traceroutes one shuold be able to guess how many there are on a host or doing something similar to the above.

traceroute to boards.ie (82.195.136.250), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  jwn (192.168.1.1)  2.211 ms  1.466 ms  1.427 ms
 2  dn03-fe-1-3-1-150-tallaght.irishbroadband.ie (62.231.34.113)  5.510 ms  7.269 ms  5.185 ms
 3  dn42-as1-0-ibis-access.irishbroadband.ie (62.231.52.134)  5.481 ms  6.095 ms  9.124 ms
 4  dn42-fe-0-1-2-13-ibis-gw.irishbroadband.ie (83.141.117.45)  10.819 ms  8.580 ms  6.917 ms
 5  panama-inex.hosting365.ie (193.242.111.87)  11.050 ms  13.281 ms *
 6  corerouter1.hosting365.ie (82.195.128.7)  13.647 ms *  15.933 ms
 7  boards.ie (82.195.136.250)  9.593 ms *  11.077 ms

doing arp -a on my own internal router at my house gives...

~ # arp -a
? (192.168.1.201) at 00:30:1B:B0:CB:95 [ether] on br0
? (83.141.64.129) at 00:05:85:DD:78:DC [ether] on vlan1
? (192.168.1.203) at 00:11:50:3F:15:CB [ether] on br0
? (192.168.1.202) at 00:0D:93:EF:43:48 [ether] on br0

so i know there's seems to be 30 or so hosts on the sector/mast i am on.

also letting ping run for long periods...

64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=845 ttl=57 time=9 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=846 ttl=57 time=12 ms
133 bytes from 82.160.27.100: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=847 ttl=57 time=7 ms
36 bytes from 222.79.41.217: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
36 bytes from 222.86.171.111: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=848 ttl=57 time=7 ms
133 bytes from 221.225.142.130: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
133 bytes from 218.71.167.211: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=849 ttl=57 time=10 ms
36 bytes from 221.3.48.44: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=850 ttl=57 time=12 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=851 ttl=57 time=12 ms
36 bytes from 203.218.118.165: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=852 ttl=57 time=12 ms
36 bytes from 83.237.197.244: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=853 ttl=57 time=9 ms
36 bytes from 61.174.89.222: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=1
133 bytes from 216.61.211.77: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=1
133 bytes from 83.8.68.180: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=854 ttl=57 time=16 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=855 ttl=57 time=22 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=856 ttl=57 time=10 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=857 ttl=57 time=7 ms
36 bytes from 222.134.222.30: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=858 ttl=57 time=9 ms
36 bytes from 221.237.2.236: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=859 ttl=57 time=25 ms
133 bytes from 61.173.232.151: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
36 bytes from 61.144.18.130: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
133 bytes from 220.173.219.106: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=860 ttl=57 time=6 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=861 ttl=57 time=19 ms
36 bytes from 218.1.63.18: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=1
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=862 ttl=57 time=14 ms
36 bytes from 200.69.49.144: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=3

or alternatively....

4 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=926 ttl=57 time=15 ms
36 bytes from 83.141.117.45: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=4
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=927 ttl=57 time=13 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=928 ttl=57 time=12 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=930 ttl=57 time=10 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=935 ttl=57 time=12 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=939 ttl=57 time=18 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=940 ttl=57 time=10 ms
36 bytes from 83.141.117.45: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=4
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=961 ttl=57 time=367 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=966 ttl=57 time=44 ms
36 bytes from 83.141.117.45: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=4
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=971 ttl=57 time=65 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=981 ttl=57 time=33 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=1005 ttl=57 time=26 ms
56 bytes from 84.150.213.14: icmp_type=3 (Dest Unreachable) icmp_code=1
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=1016 ttl=57 time=20 ms
64 bytes from 82.195.136.250: icmp_seq=1018 ttl=57 time=19 ms

note 83.141.117.45 is DN42-fe-0-1-2-13-ibis-gw.irishbroadband.ie which is the last point i hit on ibb's network before going to the outside world.

doing all this doesnt really explain my average speed of 10kb/s no matter what time i am online. is it really safe to assume all 30 users that i can see are hardcore leechers and thus contention is kicking in? or is it a case of assuming its [((128/24)*2)+(slack)]mbit/s per router that they have and contention shouldnt really be an issue? does this constitute as a sector? if so then ~10mbits between 127 users seem vaguely reasonable and not all them are maxing out the line all the time

Irishpimpdude · 16-01-2006 1:41am

My connection has been dropping all night... very weird!

oscarBravo · 16-01-2006 1:43am

vinks wrote:

im on 83.141.64.156 / 255.255.255.192 with the 84.141.64.129 gateway.

just working out the netmasks etc...

ipcalc 83.141.64.0/255.255.255.192
Address:   83.141.64.0          01010011.10001101.01000000.00 000000
Netmask:   255.255.255.192 = 26 11111111.11111111.11111111.11 000000
Wildcard:  0.0.0.63             00000000.00000000.00000000.00 111111
=>
Network:   83.141.64.0/26       01010011.10001101.01000000.00 000000
HostMin:   83.141.64.1          01010011.10001101.01000000.00 000001
HostMax:   83.141.64.62         01010011.10001101.01000000.00 111110
Broadcast: 83.141.64.63         01010011.10001101.01000000.00 111111
Hosts/Net: 62                    Class A

Um. Wouldn't it have made more sense to do this:

# ipcalc 83.141.64.156/255.255.255.192
Address:   83.141.64.156        01010011.10001101.01000000.10 011100
Netmask:   255.255.255.192 = 26 11111111.11111111.11111111.11 000000
Wildcard:  0.0.0.63             00000000.00000000.00000000.00 111111
=>
Network:   83.141.64.128/26     01010011.10001101.01000000.10 000000
HostMin:   83.141.64.129        01010011.10001101.01000000.10 000001
HostMax:   83.141.64.190        01010011.10001101.01000000.10 111110
Broadcast: 83.141.64.191        01010011.10001101.01000000.10 111111
Hosts/Net: 62                    Class A

You ran the calculation on a different subnet to the one you're in.

vinks · 16-01-2006 8:10am

i guess i should have, the number of hosts which i was interested in is pretty much the same, since i decided to scan the whole /24 to see what was there. im more interested in seeing the total number of hosts with ip's near me, i've half considered in doing a wider ranged scan of ips if i knew what ranges ibb own. since i dont completey buy the whole contention crap that ibb are telling me, or the how they say there is a problem on my radio/sector. im assuming ibb own the /24 of the range that i am in and ips near me are on the same mast/sector

oscarBravo · 16-01-2006 9:36am

vinks wrote:

im assuming ibb own the /24 of the range that i am in...

That's pretty much a certainty.

vinks wrote:

...and ips near me are on the same mast/sector

That's less so. You won't be able to tell anything about where IPs are located without tracing routes. Even then, I'm not sure.

vinks · 16-01-2006 10:00am

i guess ibb dont really think about how they layout their network.

IBB Network in the worst state yet

Comments