In reply to a post by Uilebheist:

What I find interesting is that it seems to have increased from just less than 20ms to about 25 (hard to tell exactly from a graph) in the early hours of 30/11, then from there back to 20ms, then jumped to about 30ms.

Yup - I find the same bits interesting. And the changes early on the 5th.

However, I can tell that they're NOT from a modem resync/reboot. If it were, there would be a visible red spike at each change, rather like the spike at 10:15 on the 30th.

^Edit: For example, this is where DLM added interleaving, while this is where DLM removed interleaving.

The changes are going to be down to some re-arrangement going on in the Sky backhaul, or the Sky core network itself.

Edited by deleted (Tue 18-Dec-12 22:35:29)

your line with interleaving is similiar to mine without it

That does not make me feel any better lol.

In reply to a post by Uilebheist:

you are unlikely to get less than 800ms to that

Reasonably consistent though:

PING 202.80.32.65 (202.80.32.65): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 202.80.32.65: icmp_seq=0 ttl=46 time=810.573 ms
64 bytes from 202.80.32.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=46 time=813.398 ms
64 bytes from 202.80.32.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=46 time=808.377 ms
64 bytes from 202.80.32.65: icmp_seq=3 ttl=46 time=811.529 ms
64 bytes from 202.80.32.65: icmp_seq=4 ttl=46 time=812.772 ms
64 bytes from 202.80.32.65: icmp_seq=5 ttl=46 time=822.898 ms
64 bytes from 202.80.32.65: icmp_seq=6 ttl=46 time=813.799 ms
64 bytes from 202.80.32.65: icmp_seq=7 ttl=46 time=818.046 ms
64 bytes from 202.80.32.65: icmp_seq=8 ttl=46 time=813.779 ms
64 bytes from 202.80.32.65: icmp_seq=9 ttl=46 time=808.370 ms

--- 202.80.32.65 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 808.370/813.354/822.898/4.177 ms

Two satellite hops? The round trip time fits nicely.

An average of 43ms worse than Billford, typical. Do you know a short cut?

Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=854ms TTL=47
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=853ms TTL=47
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=865ms TTL=47
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=850ms TTL=47
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=860ms TTL=47
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=852ms TTL=47
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=866ms TTL=47
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=854ms TTL=47
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=857ms TTL=47
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=858ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 202.80.32.65:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% l
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 850ms, Maximum = 866ms, Average = 856ms

In reply to a post by billford:

Two satellite hops? The round trip time fits nicely.

I think so. Their only link seems to be a satellite link to Australia.
Used to be a popular thing to ask to ping whenever anybody complained about high pings on some of the ISP forums

In reply to a post by HiPing:

Do you know a short cut?

No, I've always had excellent ping times from this address, ever since I first got broadband at 2Mbps.

It drives the gamers up the wall, because I have absolutely zero interest in gaming

In reply to a post by Uilebheist:

Actually, if you want to see a high ping try 202.80.32.65 - you are unlikely to get less than 800ms to that

Yikes

Tracing route to 202.80.32.65 over a maximum of 30 hops

  1     1 ms     1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.xxx.xxx
  2    24 ms    22 ms    25 ms  lo0-central10.pcl-ag02.plus.net [195.166.128.183]
  3    41 ms    21 ms    21 ms  link8-central10.pcl-gw02.plus.net [84.93.249.46]
  4    21 ms    21 ms    21 ms  xe-0-2-0.pcl-cr02.plus.net [212.159.1.2]
  5    22 ms    21 ms    26 ms  ae1.ptw-cr02.plus.net [195.166.129.2]
  6    23 ms    27 ms    21 ms  lonap.he.net [193.203.5.128]
  7    95 ms    98 ms    99 ms  10gigabitethernet7-4.core1.nyc4.he.net [72.52.92.241]
  8   160 ms   160 ms   160 ms  10gigabitethernet10-1.core1.sjc2.he.net [184.105.213.173]
  9   160 ms   159 ms   160 ms  vocus.10gigabitethernet8-3.core1.sjc2.he.net [184.105.224.246]
 10   316 ms   316 ms   315 ms  ten-0-0-0-1.cor01.sjc02.ca.VOCUS.net [114.31.199.184]
 11   316 ms   315 ms   315 ms  ten-0-2-0-0.cor01.sjc01.ca.VOCUS.net [114.31.199.180]
 12   316 ms   315 ms   315 ms  ten-0-5-0-0.cor01.syd04.nsw.VOCUS.net.au [114.31.199.37]
 13   316 ms   316 ms   316 ms  ten-0-0-0-0.cor03.syd03.nsw.VOCUS.net.au [175.45.72.119]
 14   315 ms   315 ms   315 ms  ten-1-3-0.cor02.syd03.nsw.VOCUS.net.au [175.45.72.121]
 15   316 ms   319 ms   316 ms  as38456.cust.cor02.syd03.nsw.VOCUS.net.au [114.31.193.42]
 16   318 ms   318 ms   317 ms  syd-gsw-122-200-58-91.pacificteleports.net [122.200.58.91]
 17   313 ms   313 ms   313 ms  122-200-62-10.pacificteleports.net [122.200.62.10]
 18   311 ms   311 ms   311 ms  122-200-62-226.pacificteleports.net [122.200.62.226]
 19     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 20     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 21   819 ms   819 ms   813 ms  202.80.32.197
 22   816 ms   821 ms   822 ms  202.80.32.194
 23   819 ms   827 ms   819 ms  202.80.32.101
 24   826 ms   820 ms   819 ms  202.80.32.65

Trace complete.

Err... Should I be worried?

C:\Users\m>ping 202.80.32.65

Pinging 202.80.32.65 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=2958ms TTL=43
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=2980ms TTL=43
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=2969ms TTL=43
Reply from 202.80.32.65: bytes=32 time=3013ms TTL=43

Ping statistics for 202.80.32.65:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 2958ms, Maximum = 3013ms, Average = 2980ms

Maybe it's raining over there?

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

Err... Should I be worried?

No. But they probably should.
(A friend used to work there and apparently they've seen 4000+ms pings before)