Its not the server that is slow.

[Cryptic]

I cant seem to pinpoint it, but I get packet loss to Road Runner connections right now. Browsing BCM off road runner is fine.

[Mr. Brett]

I was timing out pretty much all last night. And yeah, I was on Road Runner. Not having any problems from work.

[GRNDNL]

I was having problems last night also, I'm not on RR.........

[Cryptic]

Contacted Above.net

I am seeing packet loss between

12 so-1-1-0.mpr4.iah1.us.above.net (64.125.26.134) 57.081 ms 56.806 ms 55.698 ms
and
13 289.ge-4-2-1.mpr1.iah1.us.above.net (216.200.251.58) 70.640 ms 69.222 ms 72.589 ms


# traceroute brewcitymuscle.com
traceroute to brewcitymuscle.com (207.44.239.40), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0.452 ms 0.201 ms 0.224 ms
2 76.38.16.1 (76.38.16.1) 6.031 ms 9.464 ms 5.494 ms
3 gig2-1.nwblwinbln-rtr1.wi.rr.com (24.160.226.81) 5.745 ms 6.632 ms 6.240 ms
4 srp2-0.dlfdwidlfd-rtr1.wi.rr.com (24.160.224.72) 6.441 ms 6.886 ms 8.619 ms
5 srp10-0.milwwirtco-rtr1.wi.rr.com (24.160.224.1) 7.237 ms 7.141 ms 11.905 ms
6 so0-1-0.kscymoL3-rtr1.kc.rr.com (24.94.160.17) 30.108 ms 25.667 ms 26.328 ms
7 so0-0-2.chcgilL3-rtr1.kc.rr.com (24.94.161.106) 23.130 ms so6-1-1.chcgilL3-rtr1.kc.rr.com (24.94.160.50) 23.332 ms 24.561 ms
8 ae-5-0.cr0.chi30.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.112) 22.999 ms 23.283 ms 22.238 ms
9 ae-1-0.pr0.chi10.tbone.rr.com (66.109.6.155) 26.600 ms 22.861 ms 25.503 ms
10 64.124.196.85.available.above.net (64.124.196.85) 22.258 ms 26.271 ms 24.453 ms
11 so-2-1-0.cr2.dfw2.us.above.net (64.125.30.253) 55.257 ms 51.250 ms 50.125 ms
12 so-1-1-0.mpr4.iah1.us.above.net (64.125.26.134) 57.081 ms 56.806 ms 55.698 ms
13 289.ge-4-2-1.mpr1.iah1.us.above.net (216.200.251.58) 70.640 ms 69.222 ms 72.589 ms
14 ivhou-207-218-223-75.ev1servers.net (207.218.223.75) 74.459 ms 70.106 ms *
15 crypticvault.com (207.44.239.40) 69.121 ms 68.701 ms 68.251 ms
cw3000hd ~ #


ping -s 1400 216.200.251.58
PING 216.200.251.58 (216.200.251.58): 1400 data bytes
1408 bytes from 216.200.251.58: icmp_seq=0 ttl=239 time=75.3 ms
1408 bytes from 216.200.251.58: icmp_seq=1 ttl=239 time=80.0 ms
1408 bytes from 216.200.251.58: icmp_seq=3 ttl=239 time=74.0 ms
1408 bytes from 216.200.251.58: icmp_seq=9 ttl=239 time=71.7 ms
1408 bytes from 216.200.251.58: icmp_seq=12 ttl=239 time=76.1 ms
1408 bytes from 216.200.251.58: icmp_seq=17 ttl=239 time=75.3 ms

--- 216.200.251.58 ping statistics ---
18 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 66% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 71.7/75.4/80.0 ms

[That_Guy]

i e-mailed this link to a friend of mine to take a look at maybe he can give you guys a hand. he is an a amazing website hacker and builder. he might have a few ideas for you.

[Cryptic]

fyi, I am an amazing website hacker and buildererer. Got mad skillz y0!

I've worked in IP telecommunications since I left the Navy (*gulp* 8 years ago, man I'm old).

Above.net trouble Ticket # : 20080424-114

[wikked]

seems to be fine now? not über optimal, but nothing noticeable.

216.200.251.58
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% Loss)
65ms min / 68ms max

[That_Guy]

fyi, I am an amazing website hacker and buildererer. Got mad skillz y0!

I've worked in IP telecommunications since I left the Navy (*gulp* 8 years ago, man I'm old).

Above.net trouble Ticket # : 20080424-114

hence the name cryptic? lol... i figure 2 super tite HAXR'S makes one l337 crew yo..

:rolf he told me he would take a look and let me know if he has any ideas.

[Josepy]

I had no problems last night at all. Im on Charter

[Cryptic]

wikked... your method is slightly flawed.

Ping with some meat in that packet. You'll never see it with a 32 byte packet.

windows:
ping -l 1400 -t 216.200.251.58

-l = size in bytes (default is 32 bytes, weak sauce... max is 1500 bytes)
-t = ping it till you say stop

linux:
ping -s 1400 brewcitymuscle.com

Response from Above.net:

Email_Message : Hello,

What you are seeing is our icmp rate limit filter. Pinging our router interface will produce this type of result. Try pinging beyond our router interface.

Thanks,

Miles Hodgens
IP OPS
Above Net


Yeah that explains why there is no packet loss now and its working.... :rolleyes::rolleyes:


I swear everyone is moron.

[Cryptic]

hence the name cryptic?
yeah more or less...

CTT2
Cryptologic Technician, USN

[Poncho]

ISPs suck. For over 12 hours they had no idea why there was "all of a sudden" a network loop @ the La Quinta in Glendale. Useless. I had to call them and let them know

[Breecher_7]

yeah more or less...

CTT2
Cryptologic Technician, USN


Twidget...... :rolf

[Mr. Brett]

AE2(AW) here. Got out in '02. Yeah, it makes me feel kinda old when I think about that...

[Cryptic]

Twidget...... :rolf

spook actually

[Breecher_7]

spook actually

Hmmm.... We always referred to CT's as Twidgets...

I suppose spook works to though.

[Reverend Cooper]

mine was fine im ion charter

[wikked]

I did 1024 actually, but kept the default 4 pings :P
Still probably on the lean side, heh.

I'm sure no one besides IT at our work has even typed 'cmd' into the run box before, so I didn't want to go nuts and arouse suspicion :goof
Ah well, at least it's normal again :thumbsup


wikked... your method is slightly flawed.

Ping with some meat in that packet. You'll never see it with a 32 byte packet.