|
|
Hi, I was just wondering if anyone else is experiencing spikes of latency on their BQM graphs? Just migrated from Sky (on the left of the graph), which was relatively flat if the connection was idle.
[img] https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...[/img]
|
|
|
|
That doesn't look very good. Are you on VDSL or FTTP? Have you changed to a new router as part of the swap? AAISP also do their own logging so perhaps worth checking their chart to see if they identify any issues.
There was some packet loss on that chart, that could be due to having your VDSL line profile reset (if that is what you are using) so the line is running at a higher speed so more susceptible to data errors. It may take a week or so for the DLM to act and make some changes to bring it inline to how it was working with Sky.
Of course raise the issue with AAISP if it continues. It doesn't look like congestion anywhere as it seems pretty consistent across the day, and I would agree that if you aren't using the line to any great degree you shouldn't be seeing those spikes. What are your speeds like?
|
|
|
As you have moved providers, did you also change routers?
OPNSense
PiHole
Unifi for Wifi
|
|
Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.
|
|
|
I'm on VDSL. Router is the same, I just changed the login details to the ones provided. It's an X86 appliance running Openwrt. Weirdly, it doesn't always show on the CQM that AAISP have. At least not as frequently as it does on the BQM. Line had interleaving removed around 1am today.
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...
Edited by Jon24 (Fri 15-Apr-22 16:57:08)
|
|
|
I migrated to AAISP yesterday and my graph is pretty bad compared to IDNet. IDNet was very quiet in the wee small hours but AA looks terrible.
BQM
Adrian
|
|
|
We all see the same. There has been some improvement on IPv4 graphs, at least for me. However this is a route thing or priority setting and charts from other monitors look a lot better.
This doesn't appear to affect the service, doing ping monitoring to any number of servers doesn't show latency issues and speeds via AAISP are the best I've ever seen on tests and always consistent with no slow downs at peak times. Monitoring from pfSense to the gateway shows no issues at all, in fact I've only 4 alerts for higher latency responses from the gateway in 30+ days and that was all at the same time around 5am when they were doing some upgrades, on previous ISPs (Cerberus, IDNet and Aquiss) this log would be filled in a few days with various glitches and periods of slower performance from the gateway due to high utilisation.
Granted the BQM from Thinkbroadband looks terrible and doesn't do AAISP any favours but it is more a quirk rather than an indication of a wider problem, at least from what I can see.
Zens BQMs are usually fantastic looking, too good to be true almost 
BQMs from Thinkbroadband
IPv6
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...
IPv4
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...
Others
This is AAISP own monitoring set up via f8lure.mouselike.org
https://f8lure.mouselike.org/proxyfirebrick.asp?ID=6...
And from further out using f8lure servers:
https://f8luresig.mouselike.org/sig.png?/62470.png
|
|
|
I agree everything seems fine other than on TBB BQM. My IPv4 is as bad as IPv6. I have raised the problem AA with support
Adrian
|
|
|
|
Be interested to see what response you get. Suspect you'll just get told the CQM looks fine and that'll be it.
|
|
|
The latency is odd, it seems to be caused with the routing between TBB & AA - not the actual DSL service (ie, AA to customer). I see the spikes on my home line too with TBB graphs. I do have a suspicion as to what is causing this though, I'll investigate some more.
|
|
The above post has been made by an ISP REPRESENTATIVE (although not necessarily the ISP being discussed in the post).
|
|
|
This is mine since ZEN migrated me from TT Wholesale onto presumably their own GEA cable links ( the Borg)And crab resilience imo
TBQM
Edited by tommy45 (Sun 05-Jun-22 23:36:59)
|
|
|
Thanks, I'm still looking in to it but I'm on leave today I'm pretty sure it's not a general problem and not latency you'd see in normal use. We don't see the spikes on the graphs we produce ourselves to customer lines. - I think the spikes are caused by something between the ThinkBroadband hosting provider and us.
|
|
The above post has been made by an ISP REPRESENTATIVE (although not necessarily the ISP being discussed in the post).
|
|
|
I changed the routing between TBB and AA at 9PM on 6th June - see if that makes a difference. It's now going via LONAP instead of LINX. If that makes a difference we'll know where to look to get to the bottom of it.
|
|
The above post has been made by an ISP REPRESENTATIVE (although not necessarily the ISP being discussed in the post).
|
|
|
Looking great on IPv4 this morning.
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...
Should IPv6 show improvements yet?
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...
Whilst I've never seen any issues with the service despite the BQMs on TBB, it would be great to see some flat graphs so that should there be some problem it would show up more clearly.
Just a quick addition, assuming the route change is IPv4 only so far, this seems to have had a negative effect on the TBB speed tester, with throughput on IPv4 single thread dropping quite a bit for me, it has always been on par with IPv6 when testing on TBB. If I do a route trace I can see the speedtest server is also via lonap-gw1. You'll wish you never started this
IPv6
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/16545873841...
IPv4
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/16545874576...
Edited by E300 (Tue 07-Jun-22 08:47:44)
|
|
|
IPv4 is much better though still not brilliant. Negligible improvement, if any, on IPv6.
Adrian
|
|
|
Both IPv4 and IPv6 speed tests here are excellent, single and multi-threads.
Adrian
|
|
|
Sorry - I meant to say that I only changed routing for IPv4 - IPv6 is still routing via LINX as before for comparison.
|
|
The above post has been made by an ISP REPRESENTATIVE (although not necessarily the ISP being discussed in the post).
|
|
|
What speed package are you on? For me it seems IPv4 hits a ceiling on single threaded tests to TBB of around 350Mbps since the routing change. I don't have any speed tests immediately prior to the change but looking back at the last few I did a few weeks ago IPv4 was >650 on single thread tests. Just tested on Speedtest.net on their single thread option and > 750.
Obviously this is just affecting a speed test and everything else is great, just thought an interesting observation and indication of how a different routing can give different results.
As for the BQM on IPv4 for me now mirrors what I've seen with other ISPs prior to joining AAISP, and its the best it could be now. Can you link your BQMs so we can take a look.
Edited by E300 (Tue 07-Jun-22 11:27:14)
|
|
|
I'm only on FTTC 80/20.
Adrian
|
|
|
As for the BQM on IPv4 for me now mirrors what I've seen with other ISPs prior to joining AAISP, and its the best it could be now. Can you link your BQMs so we can take a look.
Here's my IPv4 BQM
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...
Adrian
|
|
|
Ahh, that doesn't look great, perhaps you have an extra issue. Always worth setting up an alternative BQM, you can set up a free one at https://f8lure.mouselike.org/, this also sets up one from AAISP as well automatically, so you get two for one. See if that shows the same issues. The f8lure charts for me have never shown the spikes seen on TTB BQM.
Also may be worth posting a tracert to the TBB one, just to confirm you are routing the same way, mine is:
| Text | 1
23
45
67
89
1011
| Tracing route to pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.164]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms pfSense.localdomain [192.168.1.1] 2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms y.witless.thn.aa.net.uk [90.155.53.134]
3 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms q-aimless.tch.aa.net.uk [90.155.53.109] 4 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net [5.57.80.142]
5 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms po4-31.core-rs4.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.85] 6 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.164]
Trace complete. |
|
|
|
Also may be worth posting a tracert to the TBB one, just to confirm you are routing the same way, mine is:
Here's my traceroute. Not quite the same as yours.
| Text | 1
23
45
6 | traceroute to pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com (80.249.99.164), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 222.53.155.90.in-addr.arpa (90.155.53.222) 6.980 ms 6.878 ms 7.139 ms 2 q-aimless.tch.aa.net.uk (90.155.53.109) 7.266 ms 7.237 ms 7.416 ms
3 lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net (5.57.80.142) 7.754 ms 7.562 ms 7.566 ms 4 po4-31.core-rs4.thdo.ncuk.net (80.249.97.85) 7.754 ms 11.235 ms 7.925 ms
5 pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com (80.249.99.164) 7.487 ms 7.779 ms 7.405 ms |
Adrian
|
|
|
Here's my traceroute. Not quite the same as yours.
| Text | 1
23
45
6 | traceroute to pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com (80.249.99.164), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 222.53.155.90.in-addr.arpa (90.155.53.222) 6.980 ms 6.878 ms 7.139 ms 2 q-aimless.tch.aa.net.uk (90.155.53.109) 7.266 ms 7.237 ms 7.416 ms
3 lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net (5.57.80.142) 7.754 ms 7.562 ms 7.566 ms 4 po4-31.core-rs4.thdo.ncuk.net (80.249.97.85) 7.754 ms 11.235 ms 7.925 ms
5 pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com (80.249.99.164) 7.487 ms 7.779 ms 7.405 ms |
Looks to be the same route. Hop 1 is going to vary for most of us, its 3 and 4 that show the route to TBB and that is the same in terms of being the changed one.
I would certainly try a second opinion in the form of setting up another BQM from f8lure, and see if that is the same and take it from there. Are you having any noticeable issues with your connection?
It might be your router just doesn't prioritise pings or an issue on the line. What does your chart look like on the AA portal?
|
|
|
I have set up a test from f8lure, just letting it run for a day. AA pings look absolutely fine, speed tests are excellent, no issues with day to day internet use. Unlikely to be a router issue as TBB BQM with IDNet was fine too.
I can't say I am too bothered about it as everything seems to work OK and ultimately that's what matters.
Adrian
|
|
|
The latency is odd, it seems to be caused with the routing between TBB & AA - not the actual DSL service (ie, AA to customer). I see the spikes on my home line too with TBB graphs. I do have a suspicion as to what is causing this though, I'll investigate some more.
That did it, my graphs look great now. (in sig)
Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 17-Jun-22 14:56:05)
|
|
|
Interesting your IPv6 looks good as well as IPv4, which prompted me to check mine again, and IPv6 isn't showing any improvement except for some time over night for some reason.
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...
Route is:
| Text | 1
23
45
6 | <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms pfSense.localdomain [2001:8b0:----]
7 ms 7 ms 6 ms y.witless.thn.aa.net.uk [2001:8b0:0:53::134] 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms q-aimless.tch.aa.net.uk [2001:8b0:0:53::109]
8 ms 7 ms 7 ms ipv6.lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net [2001:7f8:17::5394:1] 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms po4-31.core-rs4.thdo.ncuk.net [2a02:68:0:31::17]
7 ms 7 ms 7 ms ipv6.pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com [2a02:68:1::164] |
IPv4 has been good since the routing change Andrew mentioned here.
|
|
|
I had noticed a service status update for a new link https://aastatus.net/42436 not sure if it was related, guessing it is, as from today my IPv4 speed tests to TBB on the lonap route are looking great and no longer seem to hit a 350Mbps ceiling on the single thread tests.
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/16561447523...
BQMs to TBB are still spiky compared to previous ISPs, especially IPv6, but better than it was.
IPv6
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...
IPv4
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...
Edited by E300 (Sat 25-Jun-22 09:28:04)
|
|
|
Well its not so good now, they changed the routing back on IPv6, and IPv4 also isnt as good on mine as it was when I last posted in this thread, I dont know if thats down to my usage or this issue though.
Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 01-Jul-22 15:59:43)
|
|
|
Post deleted by E300
Edited by E300 (Sat 02-Jul-22 13:46:38)
|
|
|
I'm seeing the same routing change. Also I'm noticing some packet loss (matching loses on TBB, f8lure and in my control panel), nothing excessive by any means, just now and again, but its gone from absolutely none to every day there is usually a little wobble. We've had on two occasions very recently the odd flicker of corruption when watching Amazon Prime on the TV, which is unusual, and looking at the charts on AAISP I can see drips of red at the time we would be watching.
I see on your chart a few packets lost at around 10pm last night, and I see exactly the same spots of red on mine. Something not quite right somewhere.
|
|
|
Just replying to my post regarding the noticed packet loss that has been ongoing for a few weeks on and off and I suggested something not right somewhere.
There was a period of heavier packet loss last night (July 4th) around the hour of 10 pm and this affected FTTP services it seems and down to congestion. These dropped packets do show on my BQMs and in the control panel but I wasn't doing anything on the net to notice. So it is known and fixes being worked on by AAISP. Quickly spotted, I know from other ISPs you can have these issues and nothing gets done for months!
https://aastatus.net/42441
Edited by E300 (Tue 05-Jul-22 16:59:38)
|
|
|
What's the current thinking on these AAISP BQM graphs? My new connection is performing great, but the BQM would subjectively seem a fair bit "hairier" than on Zen. Admittedly I've done a few speedtests in the past few days, but I notice it getting spikey even when everyone in the house is asleep, which I assume must be due to activity elsewhere.
My Broadband Ping
|
|
|
What's the current thinking on these AAISP BQM graphs? My new connection is performing great, but the BQM would subjectively seem a fair bit "hairier" than on Zen. Admittedly I've done a few speedtests in the past few days, but I notice it getting spikey even when everyone in the house is asleep, which I assume must be due to activity elsewhere.
My Broadband Ping
They used to look a lot worse but the routing was changed to TBB and the charts improved quite a bit. The charts are not indicative of the whole service, as whilst before the routing change they did look pretty poor, monitoring from f8lure did not show the same thing for me and was quite flat.
When I was on Zen backhaul the charts were flat as a pancake (never seen BQMs so clean), even when using the connection and maxing it out, and I suspect Zen have some direct connection to the testers or prioritise the packets as it was suspiciously too good. It should be noted that when I maxed out on Zen I could never get speeds as high as I do on AAISP, even though the BQMs looked like the ideal connection!
|
|
|
They used to look a lot worse but the routing was changed to TBB and the charts improved quite a bit. The charts are not indicative of the whole service, as whilst before the routing change they did look pretty poor, monitoring from f8lure did not show the same thing for me and was quite flat.
When I was on Zen backhaul the charts were flat as a pancake (never seen BQMs so clean), even when using the connection and maxing it out, and I suspect Zen have some direct connection to the testers or prioritise the packets as it was suspiciously too good. It should be noted that when I maxed out on Zen I could never get speeds as high as I do on AAISP, even though the BQMs looked like the ideal connection!
Good shout on setting up f8lure - I did have it running previous but hadn't got round to updating my DNS. I'll be interested to see what it looks like.
I had the same experience with Zen. On their backhaul pings were very fast, ping graph undeasibly clean (only the occasional spike during a speed test), but throughput comparatively poor for me - often struggling to get to half line rate on many test sites.
|
|
|
Zen 900 on btw....
https://www.team-rebellion.net/Ned/index.htm
ZEN 900 + Opnsense with IPV6 - ex ECI cab,
|
|
|
Zen 900 on btw....
https://www.team-rebellion.net/Ned/index.htm
That's similar to what my line was like on BTW and Zen GEA (the Zen GEA just grew a bit fatter average/max latency "head"). Performance on at least some of the gateways for BTW was very good, too.
Shame I couldn't seem to guarantee that kind of connection, due to them dropping you off at Manchester sometimes on a whim, or deciding to migrate your line when you're not looking...!
Hope it stays good for you.
|
|
|
Yes Manchester has been a problem but I manage that if required re routing back to London. Ipv6 has been playing up for sometime but I put that down to opnsense having issues with dhcpv6. Once I implemented my static ipv6 from zen it's been 100% fine. Hopefully won't see gea but who knows..
Longterm I'm off to youfibre symmetrical 1gb/1gb (no pppoe either)
ZEN 900 + Opnsense with IPV6 - ex ECI cab,
|
|
|
Longterm I'm off to youfibre symmetrical 1gb/1gb (no pppoe either)
Lovely jumbly. I'd love to be on a PPPoE-less service as my router baulks slightly under the extra weight of PPPoE at gigabit speeds. Not much chance of that around here (at least not with static IP etc).
|
|
|
They used to look a lot worse but the routing was changed to TBB and the charts improved quite a bit. The charts are not indicative of the whole service, as whilst before the routing change they did look pretty poor, monitoring from f8lure did not show the same thing for me and was quite flat.
For good measure I stuck a spare BQM on the witless gateway I'm on, then I can see the difference. I've always found it interesting there is quite a bit higher static latency through the BTW network than Zen's own, something I observed when with Zen and switching between BTW and GEA. I guess Zen probably go something much more like point-to-point between exchanges and their network than BT do, with more hops that we don't get to see.
When I was on Zen backhaul the charts were flat as a pancake (never seen BQMs so clean), even when using the connection and maxing it out, and I suspect Zen have some direct connection to the testers or prioritise the packets as it was suspiciously too good. It should be noted that when I maxed out on Zen I could never get speeds as high as I do on AAISP, even though the BQMs looked like the ideal connection!
I think looking back on it that there is a lot in that. I did point some BQMs at the Zen gateways and they looked terrible, whereas the AAISP gateways look like my BQM but with a much lower latency floor. Though of course a difference could be that the Zen gateways are doing all the routing in hardware but responding to pings is a CPU task.
Someone did share a BQM from Cuckoo (TTB white label) and that did look very similar to Zen.
Anyway, given the performance is so much better on AAISP for me it's largely academic.
|
|
|
Did anyone else notice the AAISP BQMs appear to have cleaned up from 2pm yesterday onwards? They lost their characteristic spiking.
Home connection
I also run a monitor on the LNS I'm connected to, which looks the same (albeit a lot better base latency). So it's not just me:
AAISP LNS
I see @E300's charts have also cleaned up since about the same time.
Wonder what if anything has got better?
|
|
|
TBB were apparently waiting on a faster port at LONAP to go live. See recent post from @seb here
Not sure of the routing to AAISP for BQM but that may have something to do with it.
|
|
|
Might well be that, it does appear that from here to TBB goes via LONAP. Be interesting to see if it is a permanent change. I did have a scroll back through my TBB history and didn't see any similar duration improvement in the past, so hope it isn't just a transient. It's the only thing that had me (irrationally) slightly "jealous" of my old Zen link.
If it is that improvement at LONAP, it goes to show how careful you need to be if relying on any one given metric! Only as good as the weakest link.
traceroute to pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com (80.249.99.164), 30 hops max, 46 byte packets
1 z.witless.thn.aa.net.uk (90.155.53.135) 7.874 ms 7.304 ms 7.858 ms
2 q-aimless.tch.aa.net.uk (90.155.53.109) 7.831 ms 6.894 ms 7.736 ms
3 lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net (5.57.80.142) 8.025 ms 7.961 ms 7.759 ms
4 ae11-11.edge-rt5.thdo.ncuk.net (80.249.97.21) 7.745 ms 7.516 ms 7.845 ms
5 te1-51-36.core-rs3.thdo.ncuk.net (80.249.97.72) 8.063 ms 8.046 ms 7.648 ms
6 po5-32.core-rs4.thdo.ncuk.net (80.249.97.90) 7.863 ms 8.607 ms 7.696 ms
7 pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com (80.249.99.164) 7.608 ms 7.474 ms 7.852 ms
|
|
|
|
The Internet: Only as good as the weakest link. 👍
|
|
|
Hi, yep just came on to post a note about this, I had noticed the charts had cleaned up quite nicely and speedtests to TBB seem to be sustaining slightly higher levels so presumably part of the same change.
| Text | 1
23
45
67
89
1011
| Tracing route to pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.164]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms pfSense.localdomain [192.168.1.1] 2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms y.witless.thn.aa.net.uk [90.155.53.134]
3 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms q-aimless.tch.aa.net.uk [90.155.53.109] 4 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net [5.57.80.142]
5 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms ae11-11.edge-rt5.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.21] 6 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms te1-51-36.core-rs3.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.72]
7 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms po5-32.core-rs4.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.90] 8 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.164] |
Helps having a clean baseline to spot other issues in the future.
|
|
|
Just noticed on the BQM a step change for the better in my latency. Best I've seen until now is 6.7ms to AAISP, this is when I connect to y.witless, as per the previous trace route above. After AAISP did some shuffles a few weeks ago for an update I've been routing to x.witless, which was giving me around 7.6ms. x.witless always seems to add about a ms, I believe it is in a different location.
Anyway just seen my latency is now 5.5ms to x.witless, this changed about an hour or so ago, and my connection hadn't dropped in that time according to the router stats, and no dropped packets on the BQM, it just starts routing with lower latency. This improved latency is to all destinations, new trace route below. This is the lowest latency I have seen from my address ever.
Just wondering what might have happened, obviously I've not moved physically any closer to the first hop. Anyone else seen the same?
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...
| Text | 1
23
45
67
89
1011
| Tracing route to pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.164]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms pfSense.localdomain [192.168.1.1] 2 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms x.witless.thn.aa.net.uk [90.155.53.133]
3 5 ms 6 ms 6 ms q-aimless.tch.aa.net.uk [90.155.53.109] 4 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms lonap-gw1.thdo.ncuk.net [5.57.80.142]
5 6 ms 8 ms 6 ms ae11-11.edge-rt5.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.21] 6 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms te1-51-36.core-rs3.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.72]
7 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms po5-32.core-rs4.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.90] 8 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.164] |
|
|
|
Just noticed on the BQM a step change for the better in my latency. Best I've seen until now is 6.7ms to AAISP, this is when I connect to y.witless, as per the previous trace route above. After AAISP did some shuffles a few weeks ago for an update I've been routing to x.witless, which was giving me around 7.6ms. x.witless always seems to add about a ms, I believe it is in a different location.
I doubt it is an improvement at AAISP, as anything yielding such a large improvement would imply something quite wrong going on previous. As far as I can tell now all the significant latency is coming from BTW's core network and is hidden to us in the first hop, so I'd imagine something changed within that network. I didn't see any step change, though I am on y.witless at the moment.
I have an old BQM running against z.witless and the background latency level is always almost non-existent:
My Broadband Ping
My latency into AAISP however is significantly higher than Zen's own network was. I think Zen tended to have more direct routes whereas BTW goes through many more devices. I'm not complaining though, as the AAISP service is much better than Zen's.
|
|
|
The latency jumped back again so it didn't last, again no disconnect or any lost packets as the route changed, yes I agree, I suspect something BTW have been doing and I got routed more directly for some reason.
So pfSense dashboard was showing 5.6ms to the gateway for a while, now back to 7.5ms. Obviously it isn't noticeable using the connection, but 5.6ms looks a looks better
|
|
|
Just adding to this some time later, we seem to be back via Linx again, the change appeared around 1pm yesterday (14 June 2023) and the same spiky looking BQMs are back, not too bad on IPv4 but IPv6 looks bumpy. Perhaps just a temporary change due to a problem elsewhere.
| Text | 1
23
45
67
8 | 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms pfSense.localdomain [192.168.1.1]
2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms x.witless.thn.aa.net.uk [90.155.53.133]3 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms k-aimless.thn.aa.net.uk [90.155.53.101]
4 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms linx-gw1.thn.ncuk.net [195.66.224.240]5 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms ae11-11.edge-rt2.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.21]
6 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms te1-51-36.core-rs3.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.72]7 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms po5-32.core-rs4.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.90]
8 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.164] |
Edited by E300 (Thu 15-Jun-23 15:19:48)
|
|
|
Hrmm... these look quite a bit worse than they used to for me pre-change at BQM towers...
This is the changeover:
My Broadband Ping
Might be worth mentioning to @seb ?
|
|
|
Just adding to this some time later, we seem to be back via Linx again, the change appeared around 1pm yesterday (14 June 2023) and the same spiky looking BQMs are back, not too bad on IPv4 but IPv6 looks bumpy. Perhaps just a temporary change due to a problem elsewhere.
| Text | 1
23
45
67
8 | 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms pfSense.localdomain [192.168.1.1]
2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms x.witless.thn.aa.net.uk [90.155.53.133]3 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms k-aimless.thn.aa.net.uk [90.155.53.101]
4 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms linx-gw1.thn.ncuk.net [195.66.224.240]5 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms ae11-11.edge-rt2.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.21]
6 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms te1-51-36.core-rs3.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.72]7 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms po5-32.core-rs4.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.90]
8 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.164] |
Yes, we re-enabled our LINX session to NetConnex who host the BQM hardware - though, I'm not really sure why it makes such a difference as neither us or NetConnex see a problem on LINX generally!
|
|
The above post has been made by an ISP REPRESENTATIVE (although not necessarily the ISP being discussed in the post).
|
|
|
Thanks Adrian for your reply. I don't know what else I might use that takes the same route (if anything does), so it doesn't seem to affect anything here either except for a rough looking BQM, although I can see IPv6 has now returned to being quite flat again and can see this is routing via lonap-gw1.
|
|
|
Yes, we re-enabled our LINX session to NetConnex who host the BQM hardware - though, I'm not really sure why it makes such a difference as neither us or NetConnex see a problem on LINX generally!
Is it something you're going to look into? I run a BQM against z.witless as well as against my own connection, as doing so allows me to see what is me and what is further up the chain. These were the BQMs at the point it changed:
AAISP z.witless BQM
My home AAISP FTTP900 BQM
You can see it affects BQMs to z.witless, and not just to end user endpoints in homes.
Whether there is any customer impact, who knows, but maybe it shows all isn't rosy along that route for some reason?
Maybe the thinkbroadband staff can enlighten us as to whether this affects other ISPs, or just AAISP? It seems unnusual, as most of the other BQMs I've seen look generally clean, except for periods when you might expect the ISP is having congestion, or the user is hammering their connection, etc. This seems odd in that there is a permanent noise floor overlaid on what would otherwise be the exemplary performance you're buying ito with AAISP.
On my side, it annoys me a little as I use the BQMs as a way of trying to figure out if I need to check anything over on my network, and now I basically have to mentaly block the noise and compare it to the LNS BQM to decide all is ok. It's not a big deal as the connection is basically performant, but just an annoyance.
|
|
|
Connected my edge router to the test- LNS last night and noticed that the BQM pings to the single IPV4 address I got with the connection much improved, however the BQMs to an IP address in the block of 8 I additionally have from AAISP, which terminate at a machine beyond the edge router are still looking a bit "hairy".
See here from 10pm onwards when I switched to the test LNS:
Edge router
Internal router
@andrewhearn - is this something you'll look into? It irks me that my parent's NowTV connection looks cleaner than this!
Parent's NowTV
|
|
|
It seems that IPv6 is going over the better routing again (lonap) as mine went back to looking flat on IPv6. My IPv4 is still going via Linx and looked like yours, but then improved a bit, not sure why as I hadn't changed anything this end, it still has spikes of higher latency but no where near as bad as it was, although not as good as it had been via Lonap.
Perhaps raise a ticket with AAISP?
|
|
|
I just made an IPv4 routing change (2023-06-29 12:50) - See how that looks...
|
|
The above post has been made by an ISP REPRESENTATIVE (although not necessarily the ISP being discussed in the post).
|
|
|
@andrewhearn Just some feedback, for me my IPv4 still has spikes and doesn't seem to have changed with the routing switch (I do see the new routing, added below), but IPv4 was never looking as rough as @jimbof graphs on the recent change back to Lonap. IPv6 looks like a nice day out on calm waters via Linx. Incidentally I checked usage in my firewall and around 70% of traffic is IPv6 in/out, so the rougher looking IPv4 isn't due to me using the connection as far as I can tell, plus there are spikes when I'm tucked up asleep. Before IPv4 switched back to lonap, so when previously going via Linx, the BQM on IPv4 was flat with nothing like the spikes seen now.
Perhaps the routing from TBB pinger to my IP is stuck going over the Lonap route, and is only picking up the Linx routing when I trace the route out, not sure if that can happen? Anyway my BQMs are in the signature for checking.
| Text | 1
23
45
67
8 | 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms pfSense.localdomain [192.168.1.1]
2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms x.witless.thn.aa.net.uk [90.155.53.133] 3 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms k-aimless.thn.aa.net.uk [90.155.53.101]
4 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms linx-gw1.thn.ncuk.net [195.66.224.240] 5 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms ae11-11.edge-rt2.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.21]
6 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms te1-51-36.core-rs3.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.72] 7 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms po5-32.core-rs4.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.90]
8 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms pingbox1.thinkbroadband.com [80.249.99.164] |
Edited by E300 (Thu 29-Jun-23 17:04:50)
|
|
|
You are correct, the route from TBB to A&A would have been via LINX still. See how it is from now, as it should now be via LONAP...
|
|
The above post has been made by an ISP REPRESENTATIVE (although not necessarily the ISP being discussed in the post).
|
|
|
I'm seeing similar spikiness on IPv4 whereas my IPv6 graph is pretty flat:
IPv6
IPv4
AAISP via CityFibre 1G
previously TalkTalk FTTP, Plusnet FTTC, Plusnet ADSL, Demon dialup
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply, I will see how it looks.
To recap, for me the IPv4 was never as spiky as jimbof BQMs, it had been in the past, then the routing got changed and it was really flat, then the recent route change which prompted the lastest posts from jimbof and their BQM seemed to have a full regression in latency spikes, whereas my IPv4 BQM started getting more spikes but not a full regression. IPv6 has remained flat. Unfortunately jimbof doesn't seem to have live BQMs in their signature and they haven't come back yet to say if it has improved.
I also see poppadum has posted a much worse IPv4 BQM (that's what I refer to as a full regression which I haven't seen this time around). Odd how my IPv4 isn't showing the exact same behavior. If you want me to do any tests or trace routes let me know.
|
|
|
It doesn't seem to have improved as yet.
There is a BQM which is running directly against z.witless which exhibits it, too.
With a sprinkling of packet loss, too, it would seem...
My Broadband Ping
|
|
|
I wonder if the issue is related to z.witless? I'm on x.witless so set up a BQM on that directly, as my IPv4 is pretty much okay, nothing like yours anyway.
It is early minutes so not showing much as I type, however its below for anyone wanting to take a gander.
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...
Edited by E300 (Fri 30-Jun-23 16:06:09)
|
|
|
Looks resolved as of this afternoon:
My Broadband Ping
|
|
|
Same here as well. A trace route now has it going via Lonap. I wonder what the issue is via Linx?
|
|
|
Yes, looking much better for me too
AAISP via CityFibre 1G
previously TalkTalk FTTP, Plusnet FTTC, Plusnet ADSL, Demon dialup
|
|
|
|
I suppose it's mildly unsatisfactory as it leaves you wondering if traffic that must go via that route is somehow less performant; changing the routing for BQM is a bit of a frig (if that's what has happened).
|
|
|
I suppose it's mildly unsatisfactory as it leaves you wondering if traffic that must go via that route is somehow less performant; changing the routing for BQM is a bit of a frig (if that's what has happened).
It's still a bit of a mystery - we have other ping graphs to endpoints over the same LINX connection and don't see problems - we only see these latency spikes on BQM, when the traffic goes over LINX. That LINX connection k.aimless) usually peaks at about 40% at peak - which is usually evenings anyway.
|
|
The above post has been made by an ISP REPRESENTATIVE (although not necessarily the ISP being discussed in the post).
|
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
andrewhearn