I use a MikroTik Tik RB4011iGS+RM as the router here which works great.

Paul

Well I had Community Fibre do checks and they said no packets are being dropped, even though there are due to I played World of Warcraft over IPv6 and I either saw lag (prob due to resends) or my connection was completely dropped.

Their last response:
Hello Paul,

Our Networking team have conducted thorough checks and have run tests from the traceroute provided by client which showed on Hop 8 that there is 0% packet loss and this specific hop is beyond our ASN.
We also tried from the Client Gateway Router and it was still showing no packet loss whatsoever.
They have advised there is nothing wrong which can be seen on their end after thorough testing, and have advised for you to monitor it accordingly.
They have suggested potentially this could be occurring at a specific time so if there is any further information you can provide then that would also be helpful.

Sincerely,
** name removed **
Technical Support Agent
Community Fibre Ltd.

So not sure what I can do, but it couldn't of been that thorough due to all my checks are showing it.

Paul

What’s your IPv6 BQM like at the moment? Can you setup another BQM to the next hop router to yours?

Don't forget that you aren't detecting the lost pings. thinkbroadband is of course. So the problem may not be your connection, but anywhere on the IPv6 routing from them to and back from you.

Edited by pluralist (Mon 16-Aug-21 09:59:45)

Paul - I got something very similar from CF. Their reasoning was that the intermediary routers in their network deprioritise ICMP, therefore don't always respond to pings. Surely if this was the case, the same would be seen in the v4 BQM, which it isn't.

Here's the BQM to the assigned interface address

and here's the next hop, 2a02:6b60:0:82::1 (possibly OLT or first switch?) - it's newly set up from now, so not populated. You may have the same considering we're in the same area and likely same /25.

Edited by branflakes (Mon 16-Aug-21 11:04:47)

Well strange thing is Pings are fine, sadly whatever the IPv6 address I route to has issues.

It is possible that some of the hops are not prioritising the packets when doing the trace routes, but pings are still working without any issues at all.

My IPv6 BQM
Next Hop BQM: 2a02:6b60:0:84::1 Yes I am seeing no packet loss stuff at the top.

I did a route to google.com and got this:

/tool traceroute 2a00:1450:4009:818::200e
 # ADDRESS                          LOSS SENT    LAST     AVG    BEST   WORST STD-DEV STATUS
 1 2a02:6b60:0:84::1                 97%   34 timeout     1.7     1.7     1.7       0
 2 2a02:6b60:0:1:4::59               97%   33 timeout     1.9     1.9     1.9       0
 3 2a02:6b60:0:1:1::59               97%   33 timeout     2.1     2.1     2.1       0
 4 2a02:6b60:0:1:2::55               97%   33 timeout     1.7     1.7     1.7       0
 5 2a02:6b60:0:1:3::62                0%   33   1.5ms     1.7     0.7       3     0.5
 6 2001:4860::1c:4001:1ad7          72..   33 timeout      43     2.2   363.9   113.5
 7 2001:4860:0:1::2fd9              51..   33 timeout     3.2     2.8     3.5     0.2
 8 2a00:1450:4009:818::200e           0%   33   2.3ms     2.2       2     2.5     0.1

Hop 1 is the first hop my router takes.

Paul

Edited by PaulKirby (Mon 16-Aug-21 13:06:45)

I would approach CFL jointly, as your both seeing similar levels of ipv6 packet loss, yet are on different next hop routers / devices suggesting there is indeed something common / deeper within the CFL network that is causing the sustained packet loss that you are both seeing.

Good idea. I know ft247 also reported seeing the same BQM on the v6 interface address and is on the other side of London from both Paul and me, so perhaps also worth them chiming in on zero PL on the hop just before our routers to show it's not just in one area.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

I’m replacing mine with 2004’s. Much better VPN and single thread performance.

That's what I've just done. The 2004-1G-12S+2XS seems much better suited to the task at hand, even with substantially the same busy config as the 1009.

Happy to report that single thread performance is now essentially the same as multithread - a flat line at 940Mbit all day. There may even be an approx 0.05msec latency improvement too.

The Whitebox is reporting constant 940Mbit upload and download, both single and multi-thread.

TBB and Ookla concur on download, 940Mbit flat line single and multi-thread. On upload TBB bounces around a bit more in download but comfortably achieves 650-850Mbit. Ookla is usually 800+.

There is still more to look at on upload speed to distant servers - there are a number of cases where the distant server will give an easy 940Mbit download but struggle to receive more than 300 from me.

Sounds good. I'm still procrastinating the move to the 2004's. The CCR10's are carrying on for a bit more.

How are you getting on with ROS 7.x ?