Ping address

I notice that the average ping time reported on the monitor is 80ms. When I ping from my home via a WiFi connected device the ping is generally between 9 and 18 ms. I am in NY. The ping results I mention are the google dns server (8.8.8.8). Is the broadband monitor using a server for ping in the UK? Could that explain the difference in reported ping time? Is there a way to specify the ping address somewhere in a monitor setup?

The TBB BQM is pinging your router from the UK so I am not surprised it is showing 80mS. You pinging a local Google DNS server is a completely different test and will obviously show a much lower ping time.

As far as I am aware TBB Servers might be located in London Docklands at NetConnex - Telehouse which is probably why I get very low latency to the server(s) (due to only being 5.41 km (3.36 mi) from that location) which is shown below.

TBB

# ping thinkbroadband.com

Pinging thinkbroadband.com [80.249.106.141] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 80.249.106.141: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=56
Reply from 80.249.106.141: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=56
Reply from 80.249.106.141: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=56
Reply from 80.249.106.141: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 80.249.106.141:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 3ms, Average = 2ms

Google DNS

# ping 8.8.8.8

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=54
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=54
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=54
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 3ms, Average = 2ms

Those are what pings I am getting at the moment, but they can go up a couple of ms throughout the day.

And yes pinging Googles DNS Servers will internally route you to local servers.

But 80ms to / from the east cost is about right.

Paul

Edited by PaulKirby (Tue 31-Mar-20 09:36:25)

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

As far as I am aware TBB Servers might be located in London Docklands at NetConnex - Telehouse which is probably why I get very low latency to the server(s) (due to only being 5.41 km (3.36 mi) from that location) which is shown below.

Being physically close doesn't mean you're electrically / network routing close. In your case I think you are amazingly lucky.

My Virgin Media gets 12 to 15ms and I'm about 45miles as the crow flies from docklands.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Being physically close doesn't mean you're electrically / network routing close. In your case I think you are amazingly lucky.

My Virgin Media gets 12 to 15ms and I'm about 45miles as the crow flies from docklands.

This is true, but by doing a trace shown below you can see how close I am to Telehouse, sure there are routes internally.

# tracert thinkbroadband.com

Tracing route to thinkbroadband.com [80.249.106.141]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  YAZOO [192.168.2.253]
  2     1 ms     1 ms     1 ms  x.x.x.x
  3     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  4     3 ms     2 ms     3 ms  31.55.186.188
  5     3 ms     3 ms     3 ms  195.99.127.94
  6     3 ms     3 ms     3 ms  peer7-et-4-0-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [194.72.16.120]
  7     3 ms     3 ms     3 ms  linx-gw1.thn.ncuk.net [195.66.224.240]
  8     3 ms     3 ms     4 ms  te2-3-14.bdr-rt3.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.112]
  9     3 ms     3 ms     3 ms  po4-31.core-rs4.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.85]
 10     3 ms     3 ms     3 ms  ip106-141.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.106.141]

Trace complete.

But yeah I was lucky the route was good

Paul

Well granted, the low ping for the local hop, means your traceroute looks good all the way, but mine isn't dramatically different.

C:\Users\JamesChamier>tracert thinkbroadband.com

Tracing route to thinkbroadband.com [80.249.106.141]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms     1 ms  RT-AX88U
  2     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  3    21 ms    10 ms    12 ms  glfd-core-2b-xe-101-0.network.virginmedia.net [62.254.207.149]
  4     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  5    15 ms    14 ms    13 ms  m686-mp2.cvx1-b.lis.dial.ntli.net [62.254.42.174]
  6     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  7    17 ms    35 ms    20 ms  uk-lon01c-ri2-ae-6-0.aorta.net [84.116.136.98]
  8    16 ms    14 ms    23 ms  ae-8.r04.londen12.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.66.101]
  9    14 ms    16 ms    21 ms  ae-1.r02.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.4.148]
 10    14 ms    16 ms    21 ms  62.73.169.10
 11    15 ms    22 ms    13 ms  po4-31.core-rs4.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.97.85]
 12    14 ms    16 ms    13 ms  ip106-141.thdo.ncuk.net [80.249.106.141]

Well not knowing where those hops are located and the double digit latency to the ISP's network doesn't help much, but overall its not too bad and I have seen worse.

Paul

It’s better than my old FTTC. I am lucky to be in the original NTL area where cable modems trialled in 1999. (As I had in my old place). The network here seems to be better than many other people report for VM nationally. It’s a good thing as no FTTP planned and you can’t have FTTPoD in flats.

Yeah we cannot get VM here due to our village is a conservation area, our FTTP was orig installed back in 2011 / 2012, but only the hardware for lines on our phone pole went live end of 2016 due to me moaning at them A LOT, then end of 2017 FTTC became available to the rest.

I have had people that I use to know just outside of our village get VM and never get their quoted speed, not sure what they get now days, but I recall them telling my VM said maybe in 5 years the issue will be resolved.

I TBH don't think it would of taken 5 years to upgrade / add hardware an area with slow speeds, but I have seen similar posts saying the same thing referring to bandwidth issues.

Paul

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

I TBH don't think it would of taken 5 years to upgrade / add hardware an area with slow speeds, but I have seen similar posts saying the same thing referring to bandwidth issues.

So the openreach copper network is point to point, homes to exchange, or homes to cabinet. With cable, there is essentially one long section that runs from home to home to home to home. Only at the end is the coax converted to fibre.

If there are too many high usage homes on a segment of coax, the sharing ratio goes wrong VERY fast, and very expensively. This can only be fixed by splitting the coax, and adding in new fibre to coax joints. Running the fibre back to the regional head end. Hence the costs of upgrading for VM are quite dramatic. It is sometimes cheaper to switch the frequencies in use, e.g. DOCSIS 1.1 to 2.0, to 3.0, and now in some cities up to 3.1 to support the new Gig1 service.

You get lower latency on point to point, just compare my BQM with FTTC users, but when my upload dropped below 4 Mbps, and download was 38, I decided time to jump ship. I now have a reliable 200 down, and 20 up, which compared to the 4G around here at the moment is working well.